User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 23

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 123410 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)


Hello kwami. I need your help for the continuous issue. His claims about Amanjolov and nonstop edits (1, 2) are appropriate? because I really tired to fight with him. What do you say? Regards.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI (not a filing against you...)[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. Fut.Perf. 11:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Calcutta2 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Calcutta2. Since you had some involvement with the Calcutta2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 05:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

Given your abuse of multiple accounts and your continual edit warring, you have been blocked indefinitely. — Coren (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, please accept my apologies -- I managed to swap your username with that of the socker while I was tagging accounts! You are, of course, not culpable of anything! — Coren (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I just could not believe it, administrators should be more careful. Faizan 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, mistakes happen, even when we try to be careful. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently faulty description on a map[edit]

Hi there! In the image showing status of Hidustani you have marked Punjab in ochre but Punjab has neither Hindi nor Urdu as its secondary official language. Hindustani enjoys the same status in Punjab as it does in Gujarat where Gujarati alone enjoys official status. --Babanwalia (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That was probably based on what our articles said at the time. If our articles are wrong, please correct them, or ask that they be corrected (on their talk pages), and then do the same for the map. A source to demonstrate you are correct will probably be needed. There has been endless debate over which Indian languages are official where, and I don't understand how people could not know their own country, so I'm not a good person to ask to resolve this. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu, Khariboli[edit]

Hi, I am a native Hindi speaker and I have studied history of Hindi in school. Khariboli should be above Hindustani. Also Khariboli originated from Shauraseni Prakrit and Hindustani vernacular came out of Khariboli These articles has wrongly mentioned Khariboli originated from Hindustani.In reality, Hindustani originated from Khariboli, when Khariboli started to spread as a vernacular with the name Hindustani and taking Persian, Arabic and small amount of Turkish loanwords in it. There are other dialects of Hindi like Brajbhasha, Awadhi, Marwari, Mewati, Bundelkhandi, Kumoani, Gadhwali etc. I saw your name there so, can you help me correct it. Can I post britannica link here.

Ashok4himself (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up Hindi with Hindustani. Hindi isn't even a language, not the way you're using the word. Awadhi, etc. are not dialects of Hindustani. Kumaoni isn't even Hindi, it's Pahari. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, My point is that Hindustani came from Khariboli thus Khariboli should be above Hindustani in those chart, non-Hindi speakers are embarrassing me posting that wrong information, Khariboli originated out of Shauraseni Prakrit, so correction is needed in all these articles, I tried to change it with references but it was reverted and I got warnings. Yes, Awadhi is the dialect of Eastern Hindi from Awadh region since all dialects of 9 Hindi states are put under the tag of Hindi in modern nomenclature, dialects of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand are called Pahadi, Pahadi is 'group of dialect' of Hindi. Ashok4himself (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
According to our sources, Khariboli is the prestige dialect of Hindustani. That may be wrong, but you need to demonstrate your claims, not merely put them in bold font as if that somehow makes them reliable. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sir, Khariboli is a prestigious dialect on Which Hindustani 'vernacular' is based, you have misinterpreted it.
1. The reference of the book mentions in all those wikipedia articles i.e. "Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World" mentions on page no 498.[1]
i)" First after the establishment of Ford William College,by the British, 
 prose begin to be written in the emergent Khari boli that form the basis of Hindustani. 
ii) It needs to be emphasized that the Khari Boli base of Hindustani was firmly established only in the 18th century. 
(its using Khariboli base of Hindustani, not Khariboli based on Hindustani)

2.Read this Britannica Encyclopedia reference:-Hindustani is based on an early dialect of Hindi, known by linguists as Khari Boli, which originated in Delhi and an adjacent region within the Ganges-Yamuna Doab (interfluve) [2]
3.This one from Merriam Webster dictionary(America's most famous English dictionary):-Modern Standard Hindi is a lingua franca (as well as native language) of millions of people in North India & the official language of the Indian Union. It is effectively a continuation of Hindustani, which developed from KhariBoli[3]

Ashok4himself (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Mbundas and Nganguelas and COI editing[edit]

Hi Kwami. I have just come across the series of articles on the Mbunda people/ language/ kingdom/ list of kings/ etc. I see that you tried to help the creator of these articles, and at times displayed your frustration with his methods. I am trying to understand what it was that was done on the Nganguela language, as I see references indicating that based on said editor's sources you would be redirecting Nganguela and Nyemba to Mbunda. Could you comment on that? Also, all the information on the Mbunda seems to come from the book commissioned by the editor's association, which is a collection of oral interviews with Mbunda people. I find very little on the editor, Robert Papstein and another author cited a number of times, Muḥammad Zuhdī Yakan. Other then WP pahges and WP mirrors and sites called wiki-something and something-pedia, these two names seem to be basically unknown. In the time that you tried to help the editor, were you able to find anyhing about these sources and whether they have ever been peer-reviewed or accepted by the academic and scientific communities? I have taken the issue to the COI noticeboard and would welcome your participation. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


1932 Kimberley rescue Bgwhite (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Word of the indefinite time-span

Previous words:

to do

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

upload new rongorongo R photos.

E. Himalayan Langs[edit]

> Could you add a date and ref for the speaker numbers at Tangam and Milang? + Wish I could. Any numbers I give are from my own field notes.

> Also, feel free to quote your own publications on the importance of the language, but such subjective commentary should not be in Wikipedia's voice. + Point taken!

> Also, are the Padam a tribe, or a tribal people? + Depends on definitions. Padam are basically a cluster of clan groups that speak a particular way, primarily as defined by the speech of Damroh, the primary "Padam" virkwpollage. Linguistically, Padam can be considered a dialect of Adi, or a particular range within the Eastern Tani dialect chain.

Q: Is there a reason for the "()" after "Tangam language"? User:markwpost (talk)

It's a temporary measure. We generally add "language" to our language articles, as that helps distinguish them from the ethnic articles and helps prevent duplicates. In this case, we already had a Tangam language page, which was a redirect linked from the Tani languages article. I couldn't overwrite it, so I moved your articles to a dummy name. Eventually it should get fixed. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss don't edit war[edit]

Don't edit war and reinstate your alteration. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss it at Talk:Anime. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest the same applies to your recent edits to olinguito. Please explain your edits clearly in edit summaries and establish consensus on a Talk page before edit warring. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would correcting nonsense even need discussing? I tagged the article since you insist on restoring it. — kwami (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Because what you think is "correcting nonsense" is not necessarily what others think is correcting nonsense (as in this case). That is why we have approaches like WP:BRD. Please follow that and WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
They are essentially correcting spelling errors. — kwami (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Somali language[edit]

Moved discussion to article talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dardic Languages[edit]


I have seen that you have been policing/editing articles about the Dardic languages. I have been adding citations and information over the last couple days to the languages in that category. Time and again, I have run into vandalism/self-promotion by this guy under various accounts in most of the non-stub Dardic language pages. As a frequent contributor, is there any way you can help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation-needed and IPAc-en[edit]

I notice that you're still using IPA-en to answer Pronunciation-needed requests. If you've created an automated process to do this, can we include a IPAc-en conversion? --deflective (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing it by hand, and IPA-en is a lot easier to type. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll continue to use my automated conversion after you're done.
I will mention that I made a greasemonkey script that puts a IPAc-en button in the Wikipedia Toolbox on the left side of the screen. Once you've typed the IPA-en you can just click the button and it should convert all incidents of IPA-en on the page into IPAc-en. --deflective (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Good to know. I have used IPAc-en sometimes, when I thought the auto-conversion might get it wrong; seeing it in action would be good too. — kwami (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help with IPAc-pl[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you did some edits to {{IPAc-pl}} in the past. Could you help with adding mouseover tooltips to that template? I prepared a basic list to mirror the functionality of {{H:IPA}}, all is explained at Template_talk:IPAc-pl#Mouseover. Any help would be appreciated. //Halibutt 23:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Halibutt. This is probably something you should discuss at the Polish IPA key. There can be concerns with presenting the pronunciation of a foreign language as if it were English: It's not acceptable to use the English respelling key for other languages, for example, so it would probably be a good idea to get the okay of the people there before investing more time in it. If it's help with the coding you want, then yes, I can fudge my way through it, but basically by copying from the existing code as you would, so I'm not sure how much help I would be. I'll be happy to do what I can if people decide this would be a good addition to the template. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Following your suggestion, I started a discussion on the mouseover question at Help talk:IPA for Polish#Mouseover tooltips for IPA template. I don't expect many people to join, but let's give them a chance. I'm not a big fan of approximation of sounds of one language in another language the lay way, but such tooltips would certainly be of much use to those of us less fluent in IPA script. Which means 99% of Wikipedia users. Anyway, I'll keep you informed. //Halibutt 07:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox language problem in articles.[edit]

Hi Kwamigami. I'm glad you are updating language articles to use Ethnologue (17th ed., 2013). The "infobox language" template with generate this with "ref = e17". But it generates a named reference that is usually used in other parts of a language article too. So look for <ref name=e16 /> and change them to e17. Otherwise we get the bright red "Cite error: The named reference e16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)" messages. I'm fixing these as they turn up on the broken reference list. Thanks StarryGrandma (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It was too big a job to fix all the broken links as well, because they have to be verified to still be valid in E17. I figured others would clean it up. — kwami (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The best thing to do in that case would be to replace the named e16 reference with the full reference to e16 instead of leaving it broken. I'll do that to the one's I fix. But it's not a good idea to update an article and leave it with problems. Better to have it slightly out of date than have a reference that is not reachable. "First do no harm." StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Anyone who wants to help is welcome to, but I tried to get a group together to update all the articles and no-one was interested, so I took care of all 7,000 myself. It would be best to update to E17; no sense having refs to two editions when they don't differ, and rather silly to have a claim in one place that's contradicted in another. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Can we find a middle ground? On one hand, it is true that editors should manually review whether the e17 supports the referenced statement. On the other, that will take quite some time, and in the meantime, having broken, red-glaring references in the article without a clear cause is decisively uncool. Could we, instead, provide a default reference in the infobox for e16, and gracefully mark it as outdated and needs checking. Along the lines of:
{{#if: <ref name=e16>{{citation|...}}{{verification needed}} [[Category:Articles referencing Ethnologue 16]]</ref>
I'm not sure at the moment how the #if statement should be written, so that we don't create false positives, but IMO that would be the best course of action. Should we continue this at Template talk:Infobox language? No such user (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We could semi-automate the conversions w AWB. The problem w doing it in the box, besides the fact that it says e17 in the box and not e16, is that there are about 40 legitimate links to e16 (and a smaller number to e15) from the box. There are also some intentional refs to e16 from the text, but those aren't generating errors. So, in articles that are generating errors, we could change the first cross-ref to a simple {{e16}} ref. — kwami (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that solution, replacing the first cross-reference. I fix broken references in general and have no way to know that specialized templates like {{e16}} exist. (Though I do keep a collection of very weird reference templates I run across.) Named references that are generated by templates are a particular problem. This isn't the first one I've run into. When a template generates a named reference, the documentation should say more than that it just generates a reference. It should give the wiki markup for the generated reference for cases like this when the template changes. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar w AWB? It's a huge help when you have many similar changes. In this case, just find and replace <ref name="e16" /> with <ref name="e16">{{e16|...}}</ref> (you'll need to fill in the ISO code manually), and double click on all but the first change in the edit box to cancel them, so they still cross-ref the first. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A lot of cite errors[edit]

Hello if you change e16 to e17 reference at Ethnologue please take a look at references section: Cite error: The named reference e16 was invoked but never defined. Example: Thanks --Frze > talk 07:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I did far more than my fair share. Help out with the rest if you like. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please move Nahuatl back[edit]

The usage "Náhuatl" is only a Spanish convention. The accent is not necessary in English and is not used in English publications about the language.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but I can't move it to the English form. — kwami (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
(tps) The article is at Nahuatl. Isn't that what you want (maunus)? --regentspark (comment) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
He meant Central Náhuatl languages. — kwami (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a Central Náhuatl languages and a Central Nahuatl language that redirects to something else? --regentspark (comment) 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, just like Central Tibetan language and Central Tibetan languages. — kwami (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Light flashes and I see it :) Meanwhile, you're not moving the article to the unaccented version because you can't or you don't want to. If the former, I can do it for you. If the latter, then .... Sad to see that you and maunus can no longer do these things yourselves. --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead. I put a delete tag on the target article, but half the time the admin moving the article breaks the links, so I'm reluctant to request deletions. — kwami (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicating Ethnologue[edit]

hi Kwami, You seem to have gone on a personal crusade against Ethnologue. I see no good reason for that. Your term of "content fork" is just an excuse: why should these links be harder to maintain than all the thousands of extra links added every day on WP? I don't see your point. Ethnolinks were created for a reason. Note that I have nothing with SIL, actually I don't like the Ethnologue particularly, it's just a reference among others, where some people can find some info. Please refrain from removing massive amounts of data from pages without asking first on Talk pages; you know better. Womtelo (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not the problem. Having parallel links on multiple pages is a problem. ISO codes change, and while we update the language articles, editors aren't going to know if there are other articles which repeat the outdated codes. There's no reason to repeat the codes as long as we link to the language article. That's what links are for! Read WP:CFORK. The links to OLAC, however, are not a cfork, since they are not found in the language articles. Also, there isn't any good reason to have two columns with the same codes in them in the same table.
Also, that is not a list of all known languages. — kwami (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Contentforks are not that of a problem; and someone who wants to scan through Vanuatu languages may want to have direct access to Ethnolinks without having to open 112 different entries. Ethnologue codes seldom change (I know it for a fact after having had ISO change 2 of them): when it happens it is a slow and rare process, one that Wikipedians can totally maintain with zero difficulty. Also, while the 3-letter codes in the two columns look repetitious, the links are not: so removing them means remove some easy access to potentially useful information, on a page where it makes sense to have it. I am fine with what you just did now, namely add a "cfork" banner rather than do massive deletions yourself.
Also, stop saying that "this is not a list of all known languages". You don't seem to know much about Vanuatu languages, do you? This list was established collectively by the group of all academic experts on Vanuatu languages, and no other language has been reported. (certainly not "dozens"!!! LOL) Rather than adding "dubious" tags, why don't you show off your knowledge about Vanuatu languages and actually add the dozens of missing languages to the table? Otherwise you're just speaking for nothing.
Best, Womtelo (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Lynch and Crowley list quite a few others. What about Aveteian, Navwien, or Sörsörian?
Also, if you want to link to something, link to the ISO code pages. Ethnologue is not a RS. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
That's certainly not dozens! So why don't you just add them to the table, just like I did for Nisvai? That would be smart of you. As for ISO code pages, they are empty of any valuable information; Ethnologue pages contain substantial claims, which may be right or wrong (often wrong!) but no more than any other links to academic papers or news articles that are added daily on WP. No reason to exclude Ethnologue from potential links. Womtelo (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There are others, such as the varieties of Avava, that are sometimes counted as separate languages, and it appears that your Nisvai is counted as a dialect of Port Sandwich. Regardless of how many, it's a lie to say they are all known languages when we know that they are not all known languages. It's also ridiculous to say there are 112 languages when any count is necessarily subjective. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
What is "ridiculous" (to use your word) is your claim that there are "dozens" more languages than 112 when you can hardly cite a couple more which are actually separate languages (probably just dialects of already listed languages). You know better. Womtelo (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
So, if I exaggerated on a talk page, it's acceptable for you to lie to our readers. Lovely. It's good to know our editors have such integrity. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Where did I lie? Show me. Be honest. 112 languages have been counted. If you go do fieldwork and discover more (I personally discovered 4 such languages of Vanuatu which had never been documented before) then you may edit this number; otherwise, just trust the people who know. And by the way, here's what Crowley says about varieties of Avava: "these differences are certainly not of an order that impairs mutual intelligibility". So these do not even count as new languages. You're welcome. Womtelo (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You accept additional languages, yet you maintain that the number of languages does not change. That's either a lie or a symptom of psychosis — or perhaps truth doesn't matter in an argument, which goes by a less polite term. Anyway, given that in another publication Lynch and Crowley list the Avava lects as separate languages, can you really maintain that there are exactly 112 languages? If you wanted to say "Crowley counts 112 languages", then that would be factually correct. But a blanket statement that there are 112 languages is wrong. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Crowley (2006) supersedes, and explicitly contradicts, Lynch & Crowley (2001). As you probably know, truth in science is defined by the latest consensus. I never maintained that "the number of languages does not change"! since precisely languages have been newly discovered (by Crowley, myself and others) which were not previously counted, thereby modifying the figure. But changing the figure is not to be done based on blanket statements or on your whim: in science, as you probably know, facts are established using evidence. Womtelo (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing the count with the number. The number of languages does not change when a language is discovered, because the language existed before it was discovered. Only the count changes. The number does change when a language goes extinct, but the count does not. Also, when the count varies not just with discovery but according to the opinion of the linguist, or depending on whether a dialectological or sociolinguistic definition of "language" is used, then a raw number like 112 is essentially meaningless.
BTW, facts are not established using evidence. Facts are evidence. The number of languages is not a fact: It's a conclusion based on the facts, and that conclusion may vary depending on who is evaluating the evidence. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
(*yawn*) Womtelo (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
So you're an asshole, so what. You don't need to brag about it. Are you going to continue to obstruct improvement of the article, or can I remove the bullshit? — kwami (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Now you're trying insults. That will do you no good. Calm down. Womtelo (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You've been insulting since your first response here, so it's a little rich of you to object to insults. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Insults? no. I've been sticking to facts. Just facts. OK, enough now, I've got better things to do. Was good chatting with you. I believe we're ready for consensual edits now on the Vanuatu page. Hope you agree with my latest edit, it was inspired from your comments (you've been preaching to the choir regarding language counts, but it's probably good to make these issues clearer on the page for the reader).
Peace, keep up the good work. Womtelo (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hello! i admire your so many contributions to Wikipedia. And i am awed that you were born on Saturday, because in Greece we have a tradition that people born on Saturday have a superior power, and if they curse, their curse is effective. My father was born on Saturday, too.

I m interested to know if you r African, and what your blood group is. (If you ask about me, i have a rare type, A rhesus negative). As to my article "Free Greek Language", i wrote it with capital L in the sense that all 3 words "Free Greek Language" are the name of that auxiliary language. If you permit me, i will make it capital again. I find many things interesting in your writings, if i have the time for it i wish to keep communicating with you. thank you. 888gowinda (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, if it's a proper name, like American Sign Language, then the L should be capitalized. I have no idea. However, there's the more important question of notability: If it's not covered outside its own publications, then we shouldn't have an article on it. People are constantly adding articles on conlangs, and most of them get deleted. We just deleted Kotava, which has a large literature and even has an ISO code! — kwami (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Uralic languages at ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I just want to make a comment on this edit. 'Item' can be syllabified either as 'i·tem' or as 'it·em.' This is why I suggested the word 'iodine' instead; it is always syllabified as i·o·dine. However, you were correct in reverting my other edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was actually reverting because of the 2nd, but the way our convention works, "item" would be eye-tem, not yt-em, so it's a perfectly good example. — kwami (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Help:IPA for Estonian and Finnish‎[edit]

Could you have a look at a comment of mine on the talk page there? It doesn't seem to get visited very often. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing links to Enthnologue[edit]

I wanted to query your edit [11] to Guatemalan Sign Language which removed the citation to Ethnologue as a source. If the contention is that it is not an RS for language articles please direct me to the discussion that so determined. If not it should certainly be included since I did, in fact, use it as a source when I first wrote the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We still have a link to Ethnologue: It's right there in the info box. What I am removing from our articles are hundreds of gratuitous links, most of them outdated or no longer working. I'm doing this after adding or updating thousands of functional links to Ethnologue. In the case of GSL, the link (17th ed.) did not match the citation (16th ed.), and in any case it's redundant from the link in the box and has nothing substantial to say about the language. There really isn't anything much you could have gotten from it, or that a reader would get from it.
If there were a claim in the article that depended on Ethnologue, then it should be ref'd directly, but there is not.
As for Ethn. not being a RS, there have been several discussions of this point at WP:LANG, though we continue to use it because it's so convenient and because it's often all we have. Where we have better, and you found for GSL, we should really concentrate on that. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

With all pleasure! (re: Philippine languages)[edit]

No problem. It was actually such a challenge most especially the higher language nodes since I have to fix the range relative to other nearby groups and preexisting maps. Took me more than 2 hours for most of them, but for the sake of information! --Pansitkanton (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Emilian: language or dialect[edit]

Why have you taken it upon yourself to reclassify Emilian and Romagnol as dialects of one unified language? There is a clear distinction, obvious to speakers of either. mgSH 09:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't. Our sources classify them as dialects of one language. Native speakers on the talk page even see them as dialects of one language. — kwami (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Where exactly is this? Further, do you have a source for this? As a native speaker myself, I find your assertion surprising. In 2009, SIL reclassified Emilian and Romagnol as separate languages in the tradition that residents of the region have always understood. You do seem quite the expert on this subject for someone who probably didn't know the language existed a week ago. mgSH 18:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Emilian dialect? Most of that is your fruitless attempt to establish the language as dead. I can't see anything which supports your claim. Help me out. mgSH 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Native speakers there refer to it as a dialect of Emiliano-Romagnol. They also mention the politics of the guy who got the ISO code split, and how he's not a linguistic source. Our ref in the lead of Romance languages, distinguishing languages on the basis of mutual intelligibility, also has Emiliano-Romagnol. — kwami (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Dialetto in Italian does not have the same meaning as English's dialect. Cognates are not always as simple as direct translation, unfortunately. The word dialetto is applied to Emilian and Parmesan (which I'd agree is a true dialect), just as it is to Tuscan. None of the three references in the lead of Romance languages mentions Emilian, Romagnol or its parent language group, as far as I can see. I still can't see the claim that a native has suggested Emilian is a dialect either. Again, please help me out by being specific on any of these points. mgSH 18:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, Dalby considers Emiliano-Romagnol as a whole to be a dialect.
Several of the commenters there speak excellent English, so I don't know if we can chalk it up to mistranslation. Certainly "So he invented that Romagnol and Emilian are different languages, not dialects of the same language, and he pushed his claim to ISO", while not perfect English, is pretty clear.
My Routledge volumes speak of both Emiliano and Romagnol as being dialects, though not necessarily of an Emiliano-Romagnol language.
Before the split, Ethnologue cited Agard (1984) A course in Romance linguistics, a diachronic view (Georgetown UP) as saying that Emiliano-Romagnolo is "a structurally separate language from Italian". — kwami (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Several of the commenters where speak excellent English? Is this on this talk page you're yet to link to? In the absence of any credible evidence, I still don't know understand why you've made this re-classification, especially given your plainly obvious lack of knowledge of the region's linguistic make-up. mgSH 20:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add ref e17[edit]

Emilian dialect --Frze > talk 11:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not actually a ref for the claim. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 50000 Quaoar[edit]

Regarding my revert to the 50000 Quaoar article, [12] I initially looked at it because User:Memy9909 had been vandalising other articles, and I seem to have got confused between KBOs in general and classical Kuiper belt objects in particular - our article on the latter says that Pluto isn't one. Thanks for correcting my error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that's what they were originally going for: classical KBO's, but the wording's not clear and Haumea's no longer considered to be one. — kwami (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Native Languages Map[edit]

Why are you removing the native languages map from the languages in India page? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not a native-language map. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem[edit]

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Otomi language

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEZimmermann_2012" is not used in the content Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks --Frze (talk · contribs) 08:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even edit that section. It was broken before I got there, and I have no idea how I made it worse. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wisdom requested[edit]

Kwami, would you mind commenting at Talk:Motor Gun Boat? Many thanks. Shem (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I added my 2¢. The one you really want to talk to is User:Noetica. They're retired, but you still might get an answer if you email them. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. Food for thought. Shem (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

IPA for English listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPA for English. Since you had some involvement with the IPA for English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cathfolant (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for input[edit]

I have been engaged in a dispute at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias for some time now that could be of relevance to the many pronunciations of non-English names throughout WP. It's a former featured article, and one of the contributors who got it to FA status objects to the pronunciation of the name Caxias being indicated, for a rotating set of reasons. Any input there would be appreciated, as we don't seem to be resolving it ourselves and hardly anyone else is watching the page. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

IPA for English links[edit]


You told me I need to fix links before retargeting IPA for English. But what links? I look at what links to IPA for English, and I see zero articles, and the only Wikipedia pages are archives (which you wouldn't normally retarget) and the Redirect for Discussion pages, which you obviously wouldn't retarget. What needs to be retargeted first? Ego White Tray (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are talk pages, some of them archived, a wikiproject how-to page, some archived MOS and ref-desk pages, etc. I don't see why we can't fix the archives. I've never had a problem. It's the same thing we do when we change or retire a template so that the archives don't become illegible. I've even cleaned up people's talk pages and their archives, and never had a complaint, though I wouldn't worry much about that here. As for what to do first, I don't know that it matters. The whole thing would only take a couple minutes with AWB. — kwami (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Indus script has a linguistic structure (edited)[edit]

I have noticed that you have undid the edit that i have done in the page ' Indus scrip'. I would like to know why the content was deleted when it was published in a highly reputed journal like 'science'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoopc23 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok–Oksapmin languages ()[edit]

Hello Kwamikagami, is there any reason which could explain why did you move Ok–Oksapmin languages to Ok–Oksapmin languages ()? Pamputt (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a placeholder. Move it to the proper name if you can. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I already figured that the comparable move of Moken language to Moken language () has mere technical reasons. However, I tried to move it to Moken language and the wiki won't let me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
That's where I am too. The problem with an admin doing it is that half the time they break all the incoming links. I'll tag it to be moved, though. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I forgot that you aren't an admin anymore. Meh. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Natively Vietnamese-speaking areas.png[edit]

Vietnamese people now are majority in Central Highlands, Soc Trang, Tra Vinh, Thai Nguyen [13]; the population of Kiên Giang, Dong Nai consisted of primarily ethnic Vietnamese people for a long time. This File is inaccurated and outdated. -- (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that contradicts the map. If majority meant covering the largest area, then Australia would have a greater population than Vietnam. Anyway, if you want to update it, why don't you update it, rather than just deleting it. Or you could just say "traditionally" or "as of 19xx" or "excluding recent immigration" or whatever works. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"data from Ethnologue" [14]?, this only Austo-Asiatic, not Vietnamese language.-- (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Take a closer look at the map.
Also, you are on the verge of violating 3RR. If you continue edit warring rather than discussion, I will ask to have you blocked or to have the article protected from you. — kwami (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Approximately 2/3 of the Central Highlands's population is Vietnamese people and you maked an inaccurate image.-- (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
We follow sources. Provide a source to the contrary. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Astynax. Thank you. — • Astynax talk 08:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback notification[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Steel1943's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I guess posting this isn't really necessary, since I see we now have notifications, but it's what I know. A lot has changed since I got out of my recent six-month retirement! Steel1943 (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Same-sex marriage. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Your announcement that you do not intend to stop edit warring makes it difficult to assume that you do not intend to edit war. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that "by" is such a difficult word that our readers couldn't possibly understand that "by a date" means "on that date or before", and it's a shame that you're unable to come up with anything better. Maybe we should request a bot to delete all clauses on WP with "by" in them. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Given your long history of problems with dealing with the cooperative aspects of Wikipedia, and given that it clearly continues (as you're running into edit-warring concerns on several articles simultaneously), may I suggest that you take some time to consider whether a cooperative venture like Wikipedia is really the most effective use of your energies, or whether they might be better used in informing the world in other ways. If you do choose to stay with Wikipedia, I suggest that you find it within yourself to act in a more cooperative fashion, and to gain a better understanding of and a greater willingness to follow some of the procedures here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to cooperate when people make good-faith, rational arguments. Arguing that listing "by Oct" under 2013 doesn't mean "by Oct 2013", and that there's no possible way to fix it, is neither. — kwami (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand. You're willing to cooperate as long as everyone sees things your way. Again, I suggest that Wikipedia may not be the place to you, and that your energies may be better used in ways that do not waste the time of other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not willing to cater to people who misrepresent others, as you do, even when they agree with me. As I said, good-faith, rational arguments. Yours are not. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok–Oksapmin languages () 2[edit]

You've now made an invalid CSD request that's been declined by two admins. If you're dead set on deleting the redirect, take it to WP:RFD. Further disruption is just going to result in escalation. WilyD 07:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You talk like an idiot. — Lfdder (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
But unfortunately typical. Another example of why I often leave articles at ridiculous names. At least on the third try we got an admin who understands how to move a page. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notification[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. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kindly do not vandalise as you do not know the rules of prononciation[edit]

Kindly do NOT change the IPA in Miodrag_Kojadinović to a wrong format any more. There is no sandhi rule with names, as first name and second name are pronounced distinctly in most languages and not as a sentence, and Serbian does not make final consonant voiceless outside of sandhi like Russian/German/Dutch etc.

Such changes as you are making are vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthShallSetTheeFree (talkcontribs) 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Larestani language[edit]

Please take a look - thanks --Frze > talk 18:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit. Should probly also be moved to Lari as the more common name. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You For The Pronunciations![edit]

I can't thank you enough for all the pronunciations you're providing for the Classicist pronunciations of Greco-Roman names! What's your favorite reference for such things? When I can, I muddle through OED 2e, and the current Merriam-Webster online. But muddle is indeed the word, especially with non-IPA notations (slog slog slog ugh), and that's not to mention when neither have an entry for something. —Sburke (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Gay Adoption Map Europe.svg[edit]

I've noticed your changes to Gay Adoption Map Europe.svg. However, Austria needs to be in (there is a good link in LGBT rights in Austria, and if you wish, here is a link in German to an Austrian government site confirming that stepchild adoption for same-sex couples is now legal[15]), and Portugal needs to be out, as the relevant bill has only been adopted in first reading, the second reading being postponed again and again, lastly due to a call for a referendum (The parliamentary page I have linked to in the article[16] has the last entry on 25.10.2013 and it says that the motion to have a vote in the plenary was rejected). Sigur (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed Port. on the world map too. You might want to comment on that talk page if you see anything missing – I removed quite a few states we had no refs for. — kwami (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I just gave Greenland a reference, alas in Danish but at least it's the official text of the Act on the Government of Greenland website. Stepchild adoption is authorised by § 4 1st subsect. 2nd sentence: "Dog kan en registreret partner adoptere den anden partners barn, medmindre der er tale om et adoptivbarn fra et andet land." ("However, a registered partner may adopt the other partner's child, unless it is an adoptive child from another country.) Sigur (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good. No need for things to be in English, as long as it's a RS. — kwami (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 November 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Titles of articles about abugidas[edit]

Should articles such as Burmese alphabet and Pallava alphabet really stay under these titles or should they be moved to Burmese script and Pallava script as abugidas are strictly speaking not alphabets, less so even than abjads (which we apparently accept as alphabets in the broader sense, considering Arabic alphabet)? Amharic alphabet is also somewhat awkward, but at least it is only a redirect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(I know you were part of the discussions, but don't remember where, so I'll recap everything.)
We've been making a distinction between a script, such as Latin and Burmese, and an alphabet as an instantiation of a segmental script, like the English alphabet (Latin script) or the Karen alphabet (Burmese script). So the "Burmese alphabet" is the thing used to write Burmese, whereas "Burmese script" would be that set of symbols used for any language. Cf. Latin script and Latin alphabet. So, yeah, we could move it to "Burmese script", but then we'd want to broaden the scope to include all alphabets based on the Burmese script, and the article currently covers just the one.
In the broad sense, an alphabet (as a type of writing system) is a segmental script, whether an abugida, adjad, or 'true' alphabet. Certainly Hebrew is most commonly labeled an "alphabet"; the narrow sense only tends to come into popular use with claims that the Greeks invented the alphabet. So I think we're fine. In any case, this rationale would affect the naming of quite a few articles, and the wording of even more, so we'd want to think seriously before moving it. — kwami (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course I know about the distinction, but I wasn't sure if we treat abugidas as alphabets in the broader sense too for the purpose of naming articles. I was just wondering because other articles about abugidas are found under "script", for example Telugu script, even though it is only used for Telugu. I'm also confused because Pallava alphabet and Burmese alphabet start out with "The Pallava script" and "The Burmese script", and because Pallava was clearly used for more than one language (not to mention Burmese derivatives used for various other languages in Burma). Similarly, Bhattiprolu alphabet starts with "The Bhattiprolu script", but at least in this case the script was used only for Prakrit so can be argued to have been in use for a single language only, justifying the title "alphabet" in preference of "script". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can draw the line at abugidas. Telugu should be 'alphabet' per the others, and maybe Pallava to 'script'; some may have been moved but the wording not updated. The Burmese article called everything a 'script'. For Pallava I have no idea if there were different alphabets for the different languages. Prakrit wasn't one language either, but in the case of Bhattiprolu maybe only one was written in it? — kwami (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I need help troubleshooting Template:Lang-lo[edit]

Hi Kwami. Somebody helped me with templates long ago, I think it was you, so I'm asking for your expertise again. Template:Lang-lo is not showing the Lao language. For example when I type


the result is

Lao: ຕໍາສົ້ມ

with no Lao letters. Any ideas as to what's wrong and/or how to fix it?--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me. What are you seeing? I see "Lao: ຕໍາສົ້ມ", but with the diacritics properly aligned.
I'm not familiar with this template, though, so I doubt I can be of much help. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. It must be my browser. I'll reboot, etc, and see if that helps. Weird that it's only that template though, since Template:Lang-km and Template:Lang-th are showing up properly. Thanks for your time.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oromo as macrolangauge?[edit]

Classifying the Oromo langauge(s) is always an interesting challenge. No label will be satisfactory to all concerned, that is clear. The Ethnologue, a published source, has used the label "macrolanguage" to describe Oromo. What publications have used the term "sociolinguistic language" to label Oromo? I think using both labels in the article allows readers to sense the complexity of the situation, and the diversity of opinion (both scholarly and popular opinion) on this subject. The article would not be saying it definitely is one category or the other, but simply reporting that both labels have been used for this situation. What do you think? Pete unseth (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Sociolinguistic" struck me as a bit odd to, but I was going by a consensus from a while back not to go around calling things "macrolanguages" just because they have that label at SIL. People thought it was inappropriate because it's more a bureaucratic term than a linguistic one, created to address the ambiguities inherent in assigning ISO codes, and not s.t. that's relevant to us unless we're specifically discussing SIL or Ethnologue. (I even went through with AWB to remove the word from WP, and don't remember any objections.) — kwami (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia values published sources, I think retaining the use of "macrolanguage" in relation to Oromo is very legitimate. The category may not be appreciated by all, but it is used by non-trivial sources. On the other hand, I fail to find any non-derived sources that use "sociolinguistic language" in relation to Oromo. I will edit it to use both.Pete unseth (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
But "macrolanguage" is defined in terms of ISO coding. It only makes sense in that context. I have no attachment to the other term either. — kwami (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your unexplained edits changing the name of Maharashtrian Konkani[edit]

Hello Kwamikagami, please could you explain the rationale behind your changing the name of the sublanguage dialect group Maharashtrian Konkani in multiple articles?The Discoverer (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

RS's say it's a dialect of Marathi, so I'm following them. All we have for it being one of the Konkani lects is Ethnologue, which is not a RS for classification. We also have a content fork between Marathi language#Dialects and Konkani languages that we need to work out. Do you have any advice or sources? That was on my to-do list for this evening. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
On the Konkan coast (part of the west coast of India), the language spoken in the north is Marathi and the language spoken at the south is Konkani (ISO:gom). As you move along the coast, the dialects gradually change from Marathi to Konkani in such a way that it is not possible to determine exactly where Konkani ends and Marathi begins. A group of some of these dialects that are midway between Marathi and Konkani is called by ISO and Ethnologue as 'Maharashtrian Konkani' (ISO:knn). As a result, you will find Marathi sources that claim (ISO:knn) as a part of Marathi, and Konkani sources that claim them as part of Konkani. My opinion is that we can consider them to be a subset of both (as shown in the Venn diagram).
What I am concerned about is your use of a new term 'Konkani Marathi'. Has this term been used in any sources? The fact is that both ISO:gom and ISO:knn are referred to simply as 'Konkani'. 'Maharshtrian Konkani' and 'Goan Konkani' are just terms used by ISO and Ethnologue to differentiate between the language (gom) and the dialect group (knn). I know you have good intentions, but I'm afraid that this term may be WP:OR, and secondly as per WP:COMMONNAME, we must use the most commonly used name (which in this case would be Maharashtrian Konkani). As you are aware, the coverage of Konkani on the English Wikipedia is quite a mess already; even though you have a good knowledge of linguistics, I kindly request you not to increase the confusion by introducing new terms. The Discoverer (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
A different name may be appropriate. Is 'Maharshtrian Konkani' used by RS's? IMO we need to include ISO names in the lead of an article, but we don't need to use them as the name of the article if our sources have s.t. else.
One obvious solution to the classification problem would be to move 'Konkani languages' to s.t. like 'Konkani–Marathi languages'. Then we could just list the varieties according to whichever order makes sense, and not worry about which language they belong to. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, Kwamikagami. The names Maharashtrian Konkani and Goan Konkani chosen by Ehnologue are effectively what we would have disambiguated in Wikipedia as Konkani (Maharashtrian) and Konkani (Goan), so 'Konkani (Maharashtrian)' could be one alternative. I haven't come across any other alternative names in literature. Marathi sources generally handle each constituent of knn as an individual dialect. I will try to find out with my friend who is a Konkani major how Konkani lit. refers to them.
mr, knn and gom could possibly be grouped into a Konkani-Marathi family, but I'm not sure whether other constituents of the Konkani family (Kukna, Katkari, etc) can be put in the same family as mr. And vice versa, can other dialects of mr (Varhadi, Khandesi, etc) be grouped with Konkani (Goan). The Venn diagram will help you understand this.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a complex and touchy area, and we have to be careful with what we include in which language. For example, Samvedi and Vadvali, which are listed as independent languages in the Konkani family are also listed as dialects of mr. One may even find sources that state that Konkani language (gom) is a dialect of mr. The Discoverer (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That's why I thought it would be good to unite the two lists. If s.t. is both a dialect of Marathi and a Konkani lang, then it seems more straightforward to list it under Konkani–Marathi than to list it twice.
Or perhaps we could choose a RS that does not have a dog in the fight, such as Masica. He lists Marathi, Konkani, and Bhili, with the Marathi dialects of Konkan distinct, and Konkani from Savantvadi south, with Khandeshi as transitional between Marathi and Gujarathi. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wouldn't merge them unless this is backed by solid sources. As Masica says, Khandeshi is between Marathi and Gujarati; based on the premise for merging Marathi and Konkani, I think we can't group Khandeshi in a family that doesn't include Gujarati as well.

Does Masica list two or three types of Konkani? Is his classification available online?

I agree with you that it's best to chose an RS that is uninvolved, but I would also like a source that is accessible online, for verifiability (this was the advantage of Ethnologue). IMO, instead of taking sides, it could be a better idea to mention the different classifications in the sources and let the reader decide for himself. The Discoverer (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue should not be used for classification unless we have nothing better. It's simply too full of errors, and we have no idea who they're basing themselves on.
Accessibility is nice, but quality is far more important. Masica is widely available in libraries.
Any lect of Marathi or Konkani would be appropriate for Konkani–Marathi, just as any lect of Indic or IE European would be appropriate for Indo-European. They don't have to fall under both.
For Konkani, Masica says,
These [the Konkan dialects of Marathi] are to be distinguished further from Konkali proper, centered on Goa, but extending slightly to the north (Savantvadi) as well as to the south (coastal North Kanara District of Karnataka State), with an important outlier in South Kanara, centering on Mangalore, and another in Kerala, around Cochin. (For a documented discussion of the "Konkani–Marathi controversy", see Pereira 1971.)
Another such Griersonian language construct was "Lahnda", discussed in section 2.1.13 above. Elsewhere, "normal" taxonomic problems exist, sometimes complicated by politics, on a scale appropriate to the subcontinent: is Konkani a separate language or a dialect of Marathi? Is Halbi a mixture of Oriya and Marathi, a dialect of Marathi, or a separate language? Is Khandeshi a dialect of Marathi or of Gujarati, or a separate language?
A retroflex flapped lateral /ḷ/, contrasting with ordinary /l/, is a prominent feature of Oriya, Marathi–Konkani, Gujarati, most varieties of Rajasthani and Bhili, Punjabi, [etc]
The historical difficulty can perhaps be laid to rest by remembering that Gujarati, like many languages, has mixed antecedents as well as diverse dialects: it has connections with Konkani as well as with Rajasthani.
Thus the erstwhile Marathi–Konkani *tsh has become a pure [s] and (losing also its aspiration) has merged with the original /s/ phoneme.
Chatterji set up a classification with Marathi and Konkani forming a group of their own, so that Southern Indic had two subbranches, Marathi (Marathi–Konkani) and Sinhalese (Sinhala–Maldivian).
In Masica's bibliography,
Southworth, Franklin C. lg76. The verb in Marathi–Konkani. IJDL 5.2: 298–326
Masica's appendix on NIA languages,
  • (KONKANI)-1 – S-most contiguous NIA lg., main 1g. of Goa (and of Savantvadi area immediately to N), and important lg. of the polyglot N and S Kanara Dts of coastal Karnataka to the S; also spoken by large emigrant colonies in Bombay and Kerala; literary cultivation of so-called Standard Konkani in sixteenth–seventeenth centuries seems to have been mainly of foreign inspiration (grammars, dictionaries, catechisms, translations); of an alleged earlier literature, supposedly destroyed by the Inquisition, no trace has been found; considerable literary cultivation of several modern dialects, however (see bardhexi, manglluri, antruzi, karwari, saxtti); efforts underway to develop unified modern literary lg.; now commonly written (and printed) in Devanagari, Kannada, Roman, and occasionally) Malayalam script; 1,522,684 in 1971.
  • konkani-2 – also konkan standard; form of MARATHI spoken in coastal Maharashtra (= the Konkan), i.e. in Thana, Kolaba, Janjira, and N. Ratnagiri Dts; many local names acc. to caste; not to be confused with KONKANI-1.
  • konkani-3
  • koknā, also kokni, kukna - a Bhili dial. of N Konkan, Sur at , and Dadar-Nagarhaveli; 152,987 in 1971; same (?) as LS1's konkani-3.
My comments in blue:
Any lect of Marathi or Konkani would be appropriate for Konkani–Marathi, just as any lect of Indic or IE European would be appropriate for Indo-European. They don't have to fall under both. In that case we are not compelled to merge Konkani and Marathi, we can just list the lects under Konkani langauges
These [the Konkan dialects of Marathi] (knn) are to be distinguished further from Konkali proper (gom), centered on Goa, but extending slightly to the north (Savantvadi) as well as to the south (coastal North Kanara District of Karnataka State), with an important outlier in South Kanara, centering on Mangalore, and another in Kerala, around Cochin. (For a documented discussion of the "Konkani–Marathi controversy", see Pereira 1971.)
... is Konkani a separate language or a dialect of Marathi? ... This has been settled once and for all: Konkani is an independent language
  • (KONKANI)-1 – S-most contiguous NIA lg., main 1g. of Goa (and of Savantvadi area immediately to N), and important lg. of the polyglot N and S Kanara Dts of coastal Karnataka to the S; also spoken by large emigrant colonies in Bombay and Kerala; literary cultivation of so-called Standard Konkani in sixteenth–seventeenth centuries seems to have been mainly of foreign inspiration (grammars, dictionaries, catechisms, translations); of an alleged earlier literature, supposedly destroyed by the Inquisition, no trace has been found; considerable literary cultivation of several modern dialects, however (see bardhexi, manglluri, antruzi, karwari, saxtti); efforts underway to develop unified modern literary lg.; now commonly written (and printed) in Devanagari, Kannada, Roman, and occasionally) Malayalam script; 1,522,684 in 1971. This is gom
  • konkani-2 – also konkan standard; form of MARATHI spoken in coastal Maharashtra (= the Konkan), i.e. in Thana, Kolaba, Janjira, and N. Ratnagiri Dts; many local names acc. to caste; not to be confused with KONKANI-1.This is knn
  • koknā, also kokni, kukna - a Bhili dial. of N Konkan, Sur at , and Dadar-Nagarhaveli; 152,987 in 1971; same (?) as LS1's konkani-3. This is kex
I see that there is some merit in the argument for considering Marathi and Konkani to be a single family, but I think this should be done only after clearly outlining and considering the positions of different sources to ensure we take a well founded decision. The Discoverer (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As for your first point, that we could just list Marathi as another Konkani language, the lit seems to do the opposite, listing Konkani as a Marathi language. Doesn't matter to me either way, but I haven't seen any source classifying Marathi as Konkani. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean that Marathi should be listed under Konkani, what I meant was to keep Marathi separate, and list the other dialects under Konkani languages. Classifying Marathi as Konkani or Konkani as Marathi would both be wrong. The Discoverer (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. No-one ever said anything about merging Marathi and Konkani. I'm talking about the article for lects related to Marathi and Konkani. If a lect is arguably either Marathi or Konkani, then it would be NPV to list it as only one. Listing all Marathi dialects said to be Konkani as Konkani would likewise be one-sided. But if we list all Marathi–Konkani lects as Marathi–Konkani, then AFAICT the POV issues would disappear. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not misunderstand, neither did I mean that you suggested that. Give me a little while, and I'll get back to you with my thoughts on this. The Discoverer (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to consider it as a single Konkani-Marathi language family. Another reason is that both Konkani and Marathi appear to share a common ancestor: Maharashtri. Instead of making the change outright, I suggest we open a discussion on the Konkani Languages talkpage and place invitations for comment on the Konkani language and Marathi language talkpages, so that we can discuss all issues before we actually make the changes. The Discoverer (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

From the editor who brought us Free Greek language[edit]

See [17] - his link and my edit summary when I removed it - I expect we'll see more of this. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


What is your explanation for undoing my edits? The information I presented is more accurate. I can source my information here "The language that was used for mutual interaction between the native population and the foreigners was variously labeled Rekhta ('mixed'), Urdu ('camp'), and Hindi, Hindavi, or Hindustani ('Indian')." Furthermore, the definition of Hindustani provided by the linguistic scholar George Grierson is and was the most popular definition of Hindustani: "Hindostani is primarily the language of the Upper Gangetic Doab, and is also the lingua franca of India, capable of being written in both Persian and Deva-Nagari characters, and without purism, avoiding alike the excessive use of either Persian or Sanskrit words when employed for literature. The name Urdu can then be confined to that special variety of Hindostani in which Persian words are of frequent occurrence. . . . and similarly, Hindi can be confined to the form of Hindostani in which Sanskrit words abound." So if there's going to a link to the Wiki article on Urdu at the very top of the page, there should also be one for Hindi. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point of a hat note. A hat note is designed to help people find the article they're looking for. Since we have two articles on things called "Urdu", it's good to link them together. As far as I can see, we have no similar need with the other names for the language.
As for your philosophical point, you may have a point, though I suspect a good solution would be less wordy than what you wrote. Try the talk page?
Also, if we don't already have the Grierson quote, it would be good to add it. Do you have the actual citation? — kwami (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If you believe that there are two articles on things called "Urdu" then there are also two articles on things called "Hindi," since Hindustani has been known by the terms Hindi and Urdu as the quote above shows, which is why I believe both Hindi and Urdu should have a link at the top (or alternatively, neither should, since Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu are mentioned in the first paragraph of the article). Many people simply consider Hindustani to be Colloquial Hindi while others consider it to be Colloquial Urdu, so in either case there is the potential for confusion if there aren't hat notes for both.
Are you referring to the wordiness of the hat note? If so, I agree about making it less wordy. I will think of rewording it.
The citation for the Grierson quote is: "The Linguistic Survey of India" (pp.46-47) by George A. Grierson. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's take it to talk, in case others have an opinion. AFAICT, we rarely call medieval Hindustani "Hindi", whereas we commonly call it "Urdu". — kwami (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I just saw your message after my edits. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Talk:Hindi.
Message added 00:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin of ŋ[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami. In 2008 you adding some info to ŋ on about the ŋ first being a ligature nn ng in medieval Icelandic. Where can I find a reference on the topic? Right now Ŋ indicates Alexander Gill or Benjamin Franklin as first uses. Thanks. --Moyogo/ (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It was an n–g ligature, not n–n. That was years ago, I think in a book on typography. I'd be hard-pressed to locate it now. — kwami (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo I meant ng. --Moyogo/ (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thought it might have been in Bringhurst, but it doesn't seem to be. I have no idea where it came from. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh well :-/ Thanks anyway. Let me know if it comes back to you later. Cheers. --Moyogo/ (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Useful study[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami, I posted the following at Ivan Štambuk's page, but I think that you, Taivo and JorisvS could find this useful too when countering Balkan nationalists defecating on the talk pages and articles involving BCS.

--- "Hi Ivan, I was directed to a paper describing an experiment done a few years ago by an American linguist, John Bailyn, concerning Croatian and Serbian. He basically had Croats translate several Serbian texts and found that the results support the single-language hypothesis on analysis of grammar alone because of the lack of modification done to the texts. No doubt this is another blow to the nationalist braintrust on Croatian Wikipedia that continually resorts to ad hominems and non-linguistic argumentation to preserve the image of Croatian and Serbian being different languages like Dutch and German or Danish and Swedish. The study is at" ---

LAuburger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. It would be interesting to see how translating British to American would compare. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

revert? why[edit]

Can you tell, why you revert my edit on Bengali language.i'm not understand. thanks--Aftab1995 (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there. I fixed the font (use Siyam Rupali font which is standard bengali font & this font used in bengali wikipedia as a default font)--Aftab1995 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Those fonts are just ugly. They look like they were drawn with a pencil. The original font wasn't great, but it did make the page more attractive, and it was more in line with how Bengali typically looks in print. Usually when we add text at huge font sizes, we try for something that looks good up close. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a lot better. There are probably even more attractive founts out there, but that one's not bad. — kwami (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

New Mandarin article (Mandarin (late imperial lingua franca))[edit]

Hi, a new article was just created recently by Kanguole titled Mandarin (late imperial lingua franca). Since you are a long time contributor on the Mandarin Chinese article, you might want to take a look at it. I think the new article could easily be merged into the main Mandarin Chinese article, given the timeline and information in the new article isn't all that different and many aspects are already covered in Mandarin Chinese. Thanks.--TheLeopard (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that. Personally, I like having specialized topics like this spun off, so I'm fine with it as it is. More accessible, IMO. We could always reduce some of the info in the main article if there's too much overlap.
My main quibble is that I'd think "Middle Mandarin" would be a more appropriate title. — kwami (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. endash[edit]

You may be interested in the following requested move: talk:Epstein–Barr virus#Requested move, which partially involves the suggestion of using a hyphen where an endash is technically appropriate (in "Epstein–Barr virus", because it was discovered by Epstein and Barr). --JorisvS (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Move the Mandarin Chinese article[edit]

Hi, I noticed that a user The Holy Four has started a request move on the talk page of Mandarin Chinese; requesting the article to be move to "Mandarin dialects". You and other users might want to check it out.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Tamil Language[edit]

Can You Please contribute and build the wikipeia pages of Tamil Language and Tamil Language Generic ? Please It will be highly hlpful . Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking, or what the second page is. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Angle bracket[edit]

Hi, I just saw you were rolling out that new {{Angle bracket}}. For me, the math-coded brackets look rather tall and disrupt the line spacing. Do you think that could be improved? I recognize using normal directly inserted unicode characters may meet with some difficulties owing to font coverage. I remember we had a discussion about them some time ago on Talk:Greek alphabet/archive 2. Fut.Perf. 10:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The nice thing about the template is that we can change all the articles at once. I'm not sure how much a problem direct input actually is: We have tons of angle brackets at Greek alphabet, which is a high-traffic article, but I don't recall any complaints. It's not a matter of font coverage: All 22 of our test fonts display them just fine. The problem is Microsoft OS's such as XP, which are, well, Microsoft.
Sure, we can play around with line height if we can figure out what's causing the problem. What would be nice would be to test for the reader's OS and only generate sub characters if it's XP or Vista, but I doubt we can do that. — kwami (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I obviously quite agree with the idea of using a template for this. I've added a comparison of possible solutions at Template talk:Angle bracket. If we aren't actually aware with any concrete display problem with directly inserted Unicode characters, shouldn't we just go for those instead of the math code? Fut.Perf. 13:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure. And if it's just one person, we can't be expected to customize WP to him. Also, if we decide against this, we can always revert it w a bot. — kwami (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried using the unicode characters. Fut.Perf. 13:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so the talk was going on. Anyway, as long as the changes are not fleshed out into something stable (at the right talkpage), the template should not go in article space. AND & OR, changing back to the original (bad) brackets makes this template and its background sort of a useless addition (except maybe for the minor single-point-change argument, which is asking for flip-flop conclusions). -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
We'll get more feedback if it's in some high-traffic pages. What works for the people who have problems now might not work for others. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin of ŋ[edit]

It seems the First grammatical treatise in old Icelandic was using a letter ǥ (or g̶ or g̵) to represent the sound /ŋ/. I’m not sure if there are other old Icelandic using a letter for /ŋ/, or more specifically if there is one using ŋ. --Moyogo/ (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you're able to find out. That's not the kind of statement that many people would catch if wrong. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Better to assume no clue than to escalate ad hominem argument[edit]

Kwami, with all due respect, don't be an ass. If the user says he has a problem, assume he has a problem. You can assume no clue, but there is no need to make the argument (more) personal. Cnilep (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't calling him an ass for having a problem, I was calling him an ass for accusing people of bad faith and conspiring to conceal his problem. — kwami (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
As I read it, the user didn't actually accuse you of bad faith or dishonesty. S/He did make the argument somewhat personal ('but you don't see it, so does it mean it doesn't exist??') but also allowed that the problem might be his/hers ('What OS are you using?? I'm using Win XP.') The IP's behavior was somewhat inappropriate, but there was no need to escalate. Cnilep (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


With all due respect, generally at WP:DINO we try to form consensus before removing an image from articles, so the removal of Dinoguy's T.rex with only the explanation "del. image as OR. Sure, it had feathered relatives, and may have had feathered young, but large animals tend to not have thick coats unless they live in the Arctic. Any RS that T. rex had anything like this?" is jarring, considering most images deemed questionable go through [review on this page] before being removed from articles. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

With such obvious OR, wouldn't the proposer need to find consensus to include it? — kwami (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Generally in the biological sciences, phylogenetic bracketing isn't considered OR, though, and WP:DINO follows that mindset as a rule of thumb. OR, in WP:DINO terms, is like saying "Dilophosaurus posessed venom because of the notch in it's jaws" rather then putting up a single image of a feathered tyrannosaur and saying it's supported by phylogenetic bracketing. And the artist, Matt Martyniuk, is a well-respected prehistoric bird expert, as well as the fact the image recieved little biologically sensible complaints (and the fact me, Funk and Matt himself all agreed it better to put in then the image originally there), it already had consensus when it was posted into the article, which was a positive one, with only three complaints, two of those being IP users and Rob, who's only gripe was it looked like a bad photoshop job and not the integument itself. You also dredged up a month-old conversation just because you didn't like the image and didn't even consult anyone on the Dinosaur WikiProject about it; just up and removed it. I know you're a former admin but you still need to develop a consensus on matters like this before removing images. Excuse me if I sound a little agressive, I've had a little trouble sleeping as of late and thus I've been a little grouchy. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't sound aggressive or grouchy.
I assume T. rex had feathers of some kind. That would be supported by bracketing and I doubt is very controversial. But there's a big difference between drawing an elephant and a wooly mammoth, though they both have hair. The OR is not in supposing that it had feathers, somewhere or at some age, but that it had such a thick coat as an adult, and that's where I suspect most paleontologists would take issue. There's a general principle that massive animals have sparse insulation to prevent overheating, except in cold climates. If "feathers" means anything goes, we might as well attach a peacock's tail. — kwami (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Serbian language[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? Let's discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatalad (talkcontribs) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian too, right? And Montenegrin? — kwami (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Bosnian officially uses both scripts but Bosniaks never use Cyrillic. Bosnian Wikipedia doesn't have Cyrillic.
Montenegrin does not as commonly use both scripts (not an "ACTIVE" digraphia) as they mostly use Latin, but I'd accept the argument.
Anyway, how about you change the whole sentence because the article is on Serbian language not Serbo-Croatian!
Maybe change it to "Serbian is a language with an active digraphia" ?
That's fine. We could maybe say it's more active with Serbian than with the others. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair Enough :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatalad (talkcontribs) 20:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin[edit]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin.
Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANI discussion[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.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

3:rr board[edit]

Please see [[18]] about a situation you may be invovled in. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I was running up against 3RR myself. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Reacquaint yourself with it. You're not only the one edit warring at Help:IPA for English; you've actually violated it. In the future, go to the talk page (or check the actual OED, which gives the pronunciation I am using).

When I revert your unhelpful edit tomorrow (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM), do not revert them three times without having established a consensus or I'll have to take it up with the 3RR board, including today's violation. If you can find other examples in actual common English use, I'm fine with using those instead. — LlywelynII 08:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the intro to the OED so you understand what it says. Also, you're the one changing the key, so you are the one who needs to come up with consensus. Come on, this is kindergarten stuff. — kwami (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I still can't find any footnote there that is actually on point. I assume you had one in mind: what was it? (And, in the future, in your edit note or on the other editor's talk page, it's probably good to be more specific when a page has as many notes as that one does.) — LlywelynII 08:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to either. Where is "there"? — kwami (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin RM[edit]

I have reverted your close. The fact that the RM was started by a banned user is not a sufficient reason for a close if editors in good standing have commented (see Wikipedia:Speedy keep for a similar situation). It's doubly inappropriate for someone involved in the discussion to be doing it. Kanguole 01:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, why did you take out the maps, that are exact ? Most specialists of Romance languages say nowadays there are only 2 Gallo-Romance languages. Occitano-Romance and Gallo-Italic are transitional languages between Ibero-Romance and Italo-Romance. Concerning Dalby, he is not a specialist of the Romance languages. Better sources have to be foundNortmannus (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussed at Talk. I reverted several changes that made the article incoherent, such as removing French, until we get this sorted out & coordinated with other articles. Meanwhile the article shouldn't contradict itself. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Megalai Ehoiai[edit]

Hi Kwami, I just saw your edit to Megalai Ehoiai. I haven't added a lot of IPA, so I probably formatted it incorrectly, but your AWB edit added a tag that read "tone was wrong", and I don't understand that since when I look at Help:IPA for Greek it appears that what was in the article previously matches the guidelines. So, what do think needs to be addressed here? Thanks a bunch for any help you can give,  davidiad { t } 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Davidiad. (Hey, you might be a good person to ask, given your user name. Are you familiar with how the feminine name "Davida" is pronounced in English, incl. which syllable has the stress?)
The problem was that you had the tone on a consonant, and if I remember right, just used the Greek symbol. I'll check it out later, but I've gotta go. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Kwami. So I was probably mistaken in treating the IPA notation too much like a transliteration since the iota in diphthongs will get the circumflex in our texts, but the /j/ in IPA should be regarded as a discrete glide? It would be great if you could set me straight on the representation of diphthongs with tone accents. I put the tone on /j/ twice in Catalogue of Women, so I'll need to fix those, too. They're Ehoiai (Ἠοῖαι, Ancient: [ɛː.hoĵ.aj]) and ē' hoiē (ἠ' οἵη, Ancient: [ɛː hoȷ́.ɛː]).
Re Davida: I'm a David, so I can only offer secondhand info. I've spoken with two women by that name, and they pronounced it differently, with different vowel quantities and stresses. In New Jersey I knew a duhVEEduh—stress and vowels like the surname Devita (though the second vowel in this Davida is touch further back because of the voiced dental that follows). In Arkansas I spoke to a DAViduh—stress and vowels like taffeta. My hunch would be that the New Jersey pronunciation is more common because Arkansans invert a lot of vowels from the broader practice, but I spent the past 30 years in the Northeast, so I'm probably biased.  davidiad { t } 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Reason I'm asking is that I've had trouble figuring out how the asteroid 511 Davida should be pronounced. Even found it as "divide-a".
Adjusted the IPA per Ancient Greek phonology. The second vowel letter of a diphthong always takes the diacritics, but the circumflex indicates that the first vowel sound bears the tone, so ⟨οῖ⟩ is equivalent to ⟨όὶ⟩. I don't see where the /h/ comes in in Greek script.
kwami (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Still can't tell if there was an /h/. Probly should ask s.o. who knows this stuff. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. The /h/ isn't represented in the Greek because modern editorial practice does not represent word internal aspirations like the one in this portmanteau. The title derived from the common use of ἠ' οἵη, ē' hoiē, "or such as she", to introduce sections of the poem. Is your (h) in the IPA the way to represent an aspiration that can't be read on the page but is part of the pronunciation?  davidiad { t } 02:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it was just a way of saying I didn't know if it was there or not. I'll remove the parentheses. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help on this.  davidiad { t } 02:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

saraiki language[edit]

You have my posting in jhangvi dialect. I have given reference. kindly look in to matter Saraiki is a language, Multani, riasti, thali, Derwali may be deleted please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sraiki (talkcontribs) 05:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please take it to talk. There's already a merge discussion underway. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
kindly see jhangvi dialect. you have deleted my talk. After this someone has changed. (talk) 15
05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Kindly change the map, Existing map is wrong. Upload the map showing Saraiki.

You want the language map. That's the ethnic map. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you're an expert to make fake linguistic maps to scam readers.-- (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I didn't make the map. Do try to have some awareness of what you're talking about. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear this ethnic map must be changed. File:Pakistan_ethnic_map.svg. Saraiki must be shown in the map. The map be from site as sited above. Very very thanks for language map. Now request is for Ethnic map. (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It is sourced as it is. It can only be changed if you have better sources. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your superfluous reverts[edit]

Eurasia don't contain East Asia, Far East and so forth. That's the reason why I added them. What's your problem?!

It's not "individual"! LOL. Just look at the map of Japan. Is it in Eurasia or Far East?

Please check Eurasia. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. The term "Eurasia" has often been associated with Eastern Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. That's the reason why I reverted. I didn'y know that. Sorry. Kind regards.

[[19]] but according to that map, Japan, Mongolia...not represent as Eurasian. Therefore, the distrubutions of Ural-Altaics must include the Far East, East Asia and so on.

I have no idea what that is. Eurasia is Europe + Asia. From the OED, the best English dictionary: "Eurasia, i.e. Europe and Asia considered as forming in reality one continent." — kwami (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it looks like an attempted revival of the USSR. That's not common usage in English. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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) 19:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Please cease from reverting the edits of the Eskimo-Aleut article. The area in question is a part of the Russian Far East. Calling it Siberia is an anachronism, the modern definition of Siberia doesn't fit that area. It's like suggesting New York City is in British North America or New Amsterdam, or that Winnipeg is in Rupert's Land. (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's normal usage. If you don't like it, take it to talk and see if you can convince other people. That's how things work around here. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but "the word on the street" is not the way wikipedia is sourced. Within the wikipedia itself, Siberia and the Russian Far East are defined, its verifiable. Just look at my analogy of England in German. They do refer to all of the UK, or at least GB, as England in common parlance (so do many Americans) but this doesn't mean it's correct. Frankly, I think you are a little upset that you are wrong.... but I'll let others decide since apparently you won't stop childishly reverting the page. (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll stop if you prove you point, but you haven't. Siberia may refer either to the geographical region of Siberia or to the district of Siberia, and common English usage is the former. Your argument is like saying we can't use "America" for the US because it "really" means the continent. We go by common usage, and yours isn't it. — kwami (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find the article for the USA is titled USA, and America refers to the continent. Where the article has already been established as being about the USA, because of its title, then perhaps a slightly more colloquial term could be acceptable, this isn't the case for the mentions of the region in the Eskimo-Aleut page, as it's not the main topic. The fact that Siberia is (maybe) common usage is beyond the fact, refer to the article on Siberia: There are strict definitions of the geographical (non political) region of siberia which have to do with watersheds (being the borders) which exclude the area in question. It's not my job to read for you, go take a look yourself. Furthermore, if you had an article on a random subject and used the term "america" it would be rather confusing unless you established that you were talking about the USA first. It's the same as saying England, even though it's common for people from the USA to refer to all of Britain as England, if one were talking about the (scottish) highlands in an article on a different subject (such as climactic zones) you wouldn't write something such as 'the zone is also found in the highlands region of England" even if you think England is an appropriate way to refer to it. (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This is tiresome. Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Convince people on the talk page, and you'll have your change. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt this is a contentious issue for most on that talk page, but as you see I haven't made any changes (despite your awful spread of misinformation). I am not repeating myself, as I've offered you yet more information relating to the definition of the geographical region of Siberia in relation to how it is defined and demarcated using watersheds. Your only source of reference is "well, people say this" which doesn't really meet Wikipedia's standards. Maybe you need to readdress your knowledge of Far Eastern Russian Geography, but I can't do this for you. (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize someone had hijacked your account and made those changes in your name. You should probably change your password.
You might want to read the article you referred me to. It clearly supports the current use of the name in the EA article.
Anyway, don't post here any more. Use the talk page of the article. — kwami (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Eskimo–Aleut languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, what sins have you made in this life, or maybe a previous one, to get persistently dragged in daft disputes like this one? No amount of reasoning and appeal to common sense could convince someone who is able to author an abomination such as "east Russian Far East" into absurdness of their position. Confess, my son, and you'll be forgiven; God is merciful. Your faithful groupie, No such user (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol ">" in historical sound change[edit]

Dear Kwamikagami, I see you changing the ">" symbol to "→" (referring to historical sound change) in a number of articles, and I wonder what might be the reasoning for that. I know that the symbol ">" has a different meaning in mathematics ("is greater than"). But I am also aware that ">" ("shaftless arrowhead") has been traditionally used in historical linguistics for many decades, to mean "becomes" or "is replaced by". In fact, I am aware that, for some linguists, the symbols ">" and "→" have contrasting meanings: ">" for historical sound change, and "→" for symbol replacement in a (synchronic) phrase-structure grammar. Can you cite some precedent for the use of "→" as a symbol for historical change? Respectfully, Kotabatubara (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My impression was that, in general, ">" is just an ASCII substitution for "→". There are a fair number of conventions that are specific to the various manifestations of formal linguistics and ignored outside it. I don't know if the arrow distinction is relevant outside phrase-structure grammar. So far you're the only one who's had an objection. But correct me if I'm wrong. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about this too. I've never seen "→" used in place of ">" is this sense before, even in works that use extensive arrays of symbols for other purposes. Kanguole 22:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I may have screwed up, then. I'll hold off making any more changes until I (or we) get this sorted out. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather certain that the use of ">" and "<" in historical linguistics is a well-established convention long predating any issue of computer fonts and "ASCII substitution". It's certainly been used in pretty much all mainstream technical literature in print for decades. Fut.Perf. 09:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I guess I just got confused from seeing that substitution for other uses. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you put it back? Kanguole 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will, at least for some of them. I'm finding a distinction between ⟨→⟩ for replacement vs ⟨>⟩ for phonological development. So, for example,

*-h2ei → *-mh2ei > -mai

for the evolution of the middle voice in Greek, where the arrow in the first step indicates grammatical derivation, while the > in the second indicates sound change. So a minority of the changes were appropriate. I'll revert the rest, though it will take a while. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In the hope of speeding up the repair, I've placed a list of the AWB edits that made this change at User:Kanguole/arrows. 01:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd caught hundreds of other articles that weren't from me, so this should help. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bridge[edit]

Hi, Kwamikagami. I see you've disambiguated the American "The Bridge" TV series. What is the other American 2013 TV series you referred to in your page move edit summary? Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's another 2013 series and another American series, but not another American 2013 series. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard Alphabet by Lepsius[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami. I reverted [20] because you replaced ı (U+0131 dotless i) by ɪ (U+026A small capital i). ɪ (U+026A) is really a small capital i with serif or crossbars. If you’re seeing it without crossbars, it’s a bug in the font that is displaying it, depending on what you have on your system: Arial ɪ, Helvetica ɪ, Verdana ɪ, DejaVu Sans ɪ, Liberation Sans ɪ, Noto Sans ɪ. Although quite frankly, I’m not sure ı (U+0131 dotless i) is the best either, i’d rather use ǀ ǁ ǀ́ ǃ or something like that. -Moyogo/ (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I originally used ı because it looked right in sans-serif font. I replaced it today because it looks wrong in serif font. I suppose we can use the former and format it as sans-serif. The pipe is incorrect, as it has both an ascender and a descender which do not occur in the Lepsius letter. Could you do that? I don't know here to find the style options for our coding. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The characters ǀ ǁ ǃ ǀ́ (ǂ) only exists because of Lepsius’ alphabet (of course after people used them and the IPA adopted them). The fact that their current glyph is not exactly like what is printed in one book doesn’t change the fact that their identity is correct. Arguing they are incorrect because they are too high or too low is wrong and is like arguing that Carolingian a or g cannot be represented with the characters a or g because their glyphs in some document are not exactly the same as what your font is showing. The click characters have always represented Lepsius’ characters — a note can describe the difference between today’s and past glyphs for clarification. --Moyogo/ (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As you sort-of admitted, ǂ is incorrect. Also, it's not easy to add an acute accent to ǀ, and ǃ looks like an exclamation mark. They're as different from the IPA as print g is from IPA g. If the IPA used Lepsius's letter forms, we wouldn't have many of the problems that cause linguistic publishers to instruct linguists not to use IPA conventions in their manuscripts (though there would presumably be other problems). — kwami (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
ǂ is not incorrect, it didn’t exist in 1853, it hadn’t been invented yet. They others were invented by Lepsius. Do you have any evidence they are different, besides glyphic variation — which doesn’t prove they are incorrect? FYI the IPA doesn’t care which g people use [21][22], the IPA g is overzealous encoding misinterpretting glyphic variation for semantic difference. --Moyogo/ (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No, just the glyphic variation, but as you note, ǂ didn't exist (which means it's incorrect as a Lepsius letter). I meant incorrect for letter form, not for encoding. Though, agreed, the graphic variant in g should be made in the language specification, not in Unicode. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
How does ǀ ǀ̣ ǁ ǀ́ look? — kwami (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Who’s talking about putting ǂ in that article? I’m not, you’re not, we agree we shouldn’t put there. Done. For the others I see them alright (the acute is right on top of ǀ, and you should use ǃ instead of ǀ̣ for the reasons I already gave. --Moyogo/ (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
ǃ is incorrect, as is ǂ, because they're separate letters. The Lepsius letter is just the pipe with a subscript dot. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, ǃ is like an exclamation mark in your font, because that is a glyph variant of what Lepsius had (bar with dot below vs. somewhat different bar with dot below), not because it’s a character some people invented later (which is the case for ǂ). Where is it said the letter ǃ wasn’t invented by Lepsius? --Moyogo/ (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
! is an exclamation mark. It was substituted for Lepsius's letter. Look at any font: None of them treat it as a pipe with a diacritic. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, you saying "exclamation mark" and me saying "glyph variation" isn’t going anywhere at this rate. Can you please provide a reference saying ! is not a letter from Lepsius’ alphabet? Because all I can find [23], [24], [25], [26] disagrees with your claim. --Moyogo/ (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly enough Lepsius discusses the alternates to ǃ (or ǀ̣ if you prefer) and ǀ́ proposed at an 1856 Rhenish Missionaries conference, in the footnote on page 81 of Standard Alphabet 1863 [27]: ⟊ (I used an approximate character, or ǀ̵ if you want the letter ǀ with combining short stroke overlay) and ǂ. Given the dot represents the cerebral I understand one might prefer ǀ̣ over ǃ, but ǃ’s identity is still from Lepsius’ alphabet. If we need a consensus, we can have both in the articles (Standard Alphabet by Lepsius and Click letters) with a clarification explaining the history of the letter, it’s original cerebral dot construction, its current glyphic representation and Unicode character. The more information to the reader the better. --Moyogo/ (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Lepsius: He just reported s.t. Bleek had said. We already know Bleek used a modified version Lepsius's alphabet; it looks like he adopted one of the proposed letters from that conference. But that doesn't mean his ! is the same as Lepsius's.
Laver: Not accessible in GBooks, and I dont' have a copy.
Barnard: Doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. He calls ǀ́ a "broken vertical line", and says that the Bleek system is that of the RMS. Even so, he doesn't say that ! is the Lepsius letter.
Koerner & Ashler: they say the IPA "adopted Lepsius's click symbols (slightly modified)". They don't specify what the modifications were.
Brugman says ! "originated" with Lepsius, but she also says that Khoikhoi/Bleek use the RMS system.
Either Lepsius's version of Bleek's account is wrong, or Barnard and Brugman are, or there is more than one RMS system. Either way, you have one footnote in a PhD dissertation, which might have gotten its history wrong, that suggests the Bleek letter might be the same as the Lepsius letter.
On the other hand, the IPA Handbook calls the letters pipe, double-barred pipe, double pipe, and exclamation point, not pipe with under-dot.
Similarly, Pullum in his Phonetic Symbol Guide calls it an exclamation point and the others pipes. He identifies the click letter ! with Boas's diacritic for ejectives and with the ! for downstep. Neither can be identified with Lepsius's pipe-sub-dot.
Whether the two versions of ! should be seen as equivalent for coding purposes I don't know. (Similarly, should Beach's palatal-click letter be seen as the same as Bleek's?) Pullum distinguishes the "pipes" ǀ ǁ ǂ used by some sources from the "slashes" / // ≠ used by others, and certainly this is as great a difference as there is between Lepsius's and Bleek's !. (There's also no parallel distinction between vertical and diagonal ! – there's just the one, equated with a punctuation mark.) — kwami (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are plenty of other parallels in the IPA. The ɤ used to be a turned, small-cap A. Should it therefore be formally equated with a small ? Similarly, ʊ and ɛ could be claimed to be equivalent to ᴜ and ᴇ – they are, after all, graphic variants, and it wouldn't be a problem to sub one for the other if you didn't have IPA font support. But I don't think we'd want to say they are the same letters, nor that ɣ is the same letter as γ, even though it's nothing more than an assimilation of γ into the Latin script. — kwami (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so basically nobody is saying what you are, you’re just inferring it based on parallels or what people are not explicitly saying or based on the shape. You can see how this is POV or reading things in what you’re trying to prove, right? Anyway, like I said: "[if] we need a consensus, we can have both [! and ǀ̣] in the articles (Standard Alphabet by Lepsius and Click letters) with a clarification explaining the history of the letter, it’s original cerebral dot construction, its current glyphic representation and Unicode character. The more information to the reader the better." --Moyogo/ (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
But basically nobody is saying what you are either; claiming it's the same letter would also be OR. We've had a few glyphic replacements: Pipe with virgule, pipe-sub-dot with exclamation point, and double-barred pipe with the unequal sign. I'm fine with saying Lepsius had the sub-dot and that it's now written as an exclamation point, but not with saying that Lepsius used the exclamation point. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Lepsius says if more people want to use the symbols ǀ̵ or ǂ that can happen, but notes ǀ̵ is too much like t.
I just gave you references that say those symbols are from Lepsius alphabet. What kind of OR is this if other people have said it? Nobody has said what you are saying so far!
[28] ... "with the symbols [ʘ, ǀ, ǃ, ǁ, ǂ] originally devised for transcribing clicks by Lepsius (185), and traditionally used by Africanists." [ʘ is really Bleek’s]
[29] "The Lepsius-RMS-Bleek system (hereafter, the Standard Khoisan system) is the one I use."
[30] "Interestingly, the 1989 revision of the IPA alphabet adopted Lepsius’s click symbols (slightly modified)." [I understand "slightly modified" as possibly referring to the descriptive change retroflex click vs alveolar click, but could refer to glyphic variation]
[31] "Strictly speaking, however, only the dental (ǀ), lateral (ǁ) and alveolar (ǃ) click symbols actually originated with Lepsius."
You gave references that say something only about glyphic variation (sometimes straight, sometimes slanted) or other uses of similar symbols (also used by someone else for something else) but don’t say any of those letters are not from Lepsius’ alphabet. Going back to the other letters, I just found Johann Georg Krönlein (1889), Wortschatz der Khoi-khoin(namaqua-hottentotten) which uses a font where the click bars are taller than x-height in Lepsius’ Alphabet, considering Beach (1938) says Krönlein created the letters according to Click letters, this is interesting. --Moyogo/ (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad you found Krönlein; I haven't seen that for a while.
None of your sources say the ! is the same as the Lepsius letter. Sure, it's from Lepsius, but A is from Phoenician. That doesn't mean the Latin A is considered the same letter as the Phoenician A. We know that Lepsius has a pipe with a subscript dot. We know that the IPA has an exclamation point. Whether those two are the "same", we don't know.
Interesting thing about Kroenlein: In Bleek, the pipe letters are upright when roman, inclined when italic. In Kroenlein, they're inclined either way. And yes, they have the ascender height of a t, just a skosh under a d or b or capital letter. They're a lot more like /, //, and ≠. (Though this is the Nama orthography, not AFAICT the original Kroenlein script.) The sub-dot is still clear, though. In fact, there's clear distinction between the letter ! and the punctuation mark ! in the Nama text. (Look under sawé, for example, for them both inclined, and in the entries, where the letter ! is still inclined, just like the other pipe letters.) So it's clear that graphically, at least, there's a distinction between pipe-sub-dot and exclamation point, and evidently the distinction was important enough to cast special type for the letter !. In the IPA, the distinction has been lost. In Unicode, the codes are distinct, but that has to do with the different treatment of letters and punctuation. There is no graphic distinction in any application of Unicode that I've seen. — kwami (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Phoenician, seriously? We’re talking about Lepsius’ alphabet, Khoisan tradition and IPA here, all recent Latin systems. "None of your sources say the ! is the same as the Lepsius letter." Seriously "originally devised for transcribing clicks by Lepsius", "Lepsius’s click symbols", "[...] alveolar (ǃ) click symbols actually originated with Lepsius". How do you want them to say it? Seriously, what statement do you want me to find? No sources say they are different! If the fonts you have don’t have the letter ǃ with the shape you want, that’s a font issue and can be fixed. In any case, let’s revert back to ǀ, ǁ, ǂ in those articles and for ǃ, a note about ǀ̣ is fine (or vice-versa if you want, I’m getting tired of this). --Moyogo/ (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Read your sources more carefully. The same source that says ! was originally devised by Lepsius also says that ǂ and ʘ were originally devised by Lepsius, but we know that's wrong. (Actually, I believe ! was originally devised by Kroenlein.) The same source that calls ! "Lepsius’s click symbol" also calls ǂ and ʘ his click symbols – again, wrong, and if "slightly modified" can mean adding an entirely new character, it can certainly mean slightly modifying one. Yes, ! originated with Lepsius – oops, I mean Kroenlein, they got that wrong, and even if they were right, it hardly means it was never modified. Yes, ʘ ǀ ǃ ǁ ǂ are called the Lepsius letters, just as 1 2 3 are called the Arabic numerals, but neither name is entirely accurate. Meanwhile, common sense is against you, for the letter ! is clearly *not* an exclamation mark in Lepsius and Kroenlein. Find a source that says that pipe-sub-dot is the same character as exclamation point, and we can include it in the articles. — kwami (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for reverting to ǀ ǁ ǂ. Please find a source the says ! is not Lepsius’ bar with dot below and I won’t include it in the articles. --Moyogo/ (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave you two: Lepsius and Krönlein. That should be adequate. — kwami (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Some articles with PUA[edit]

I found them today by running AWB. You are welcome to fix them. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Preciate it. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection for Madai[edit]


Could you please look at the Madai and its talk page. There is a problem with an user. And also look at my talk page too please.Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, my internet connection went out last night before I could respond. Today when I got to the talk page it was TLDR. I mentioned a couple other concerns about the article, though. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

tenjiku shogi: got some questions[edit]

Do you know where some of the TSA interpretations came from? (e.g. fire demon move, chariot soldier move, lion hawk move, jumping generals rules) Because I can't find any way to interpret the relevant passages in the Shogi zushiki so that their moves make any sense (left some comments on Talk:Tenjiku shogi). What do the other Edo-period sources say? Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been years since I've looked at that. I never did figure out where the TSA came from. I'm not even sure where I saw the original. Might've been excepts at WP-ja, or in their external links? I was never able to find very much of the original, though, or I would've quoted the entire thing at Wikisource. And I'm moving again, so I can't afford the time to get back into it. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, It's OK. I'll search around on relevant Japanese sites then (relying on blind luck and what limited help knowledge of Chinese gives with kanji to figure out what is going on!). The TSA rules for tenjiku cause the game to be severely unbalanced; maybe the effectiveness of 1.P-9k! (which wins a Free King outright) is not as severe with these other rules? Have to do some OR analysis off-wiki for this (no I am not going to put it into the article, I'm just wondering if it's playable with Japanese sources' interpretation). Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
TSA doesn't seem very reliable, from what I remember, so Japanese sources are probably best. Let me know if you find anything you need help with. You can probably read long stretches of Sino-Japanese better than I can, but I might be able to help with the rest. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Göktürk'ün Toprak Halkı-Atlas[edit]

I want to add some images to Türks (kök) from Atlas magazine. Its a new founding and I think it may be helpful but I don't know how to do it. Jezebel1349 (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've learned how to do it a bit. I have added an image to Türks (kök). There were 2 images there and both of them were the same. Jezebel1349 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

First, I'd recommend moving to Göktürks. That's the common name in English. It's the only one I'm familiar with, for example. Ottoman "corruption" or not, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. "(kök)" is a bad disambiguator, because it's meaningless in English.
Second, we can't use images that are copyrighted. Unless the magazine provides their images for free use, someone will notice it and delete it. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kwamikagami, I discussed the correct form of the tribe's name with the creators of this article who are all native Otjiherero speakers. They told me it is Ovambanderu, not just Mbanderu. Whenever referring to the tribe as such, it must be in the plural (Ova) form. Shortening it to Mbanderu is only possible in the singular form, so Omumbanderu might be shortened to Mbanderu. The title is now not even grammatically correct, as one person cannot form a people. How is Ovambanderu people redundant? --Pgallert (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be correct if we were writing in Herero. The Bantu prefix ova- already means that it's people. In English, we generally use the root + "people", so we could either say Ovambanderu or "Mbanderu people". It's analogous with Herero language and Otjiherero, but not redundant "Otjiheroro language". It's the same with Swahili people or Waswahili, Chopi people, etc. Generally, on Wikipedia we prefer to use the root for both the people and the language. It's more accessible that way for English-speakers who are not familiar with Bantu grammar. There are a few exceptions: Lingala is much more commonly used with the language prefix li- than without, and the word Bantu itself *always* appears with the people prefix ba-, but all things being equal we use the bare root. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You seriously put what we always do over what is correct? *shrugs shoulders* As said, "Mbanderu people" is grammatically impossible. Mbanderu is not an English word, and there is no English word for that tribe, so it does not matter whether this is the English or the Otjiherero Wikipedia. I know that is no proof but if you Google it you'll find "Ovambanderu people" leading 2:1 over "Mbanderu people". BTW, 'Otji' does not mean "language" but "something". So yes, correctly it is Otjiherero language. --Pgallert (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The redundancy in both cases is "people" and "language", respectively. Ovaherero can be nothing else but people, Otjiherero can be nothing else but a language. The prefixes are not redundant. --Pgallert (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It is grammatically possible, because Herero plurals are not part of English grammar. The fact that "Mbandero people" commonly occurs in English should tell you that it's acceptable in English. Otji- is grammatical agreement with a class of nouns that includes language, not "something". In English it is only used for the language. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Herero singulars are likewise not part of the English language (The singular of Ovambanderu is Omumbanderu), but luckily the ellipses of the Otjiherero singulars seem to be. I learn something new every day, also how many native Otjiherero speakers there are. --Pgallert (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Why should

For other uses, see Cherub (disambiguation).

not be used in this article?

Most people think a cherub is a winged baby. They likely won't understand that they're at the wrong article with a simple dab hat note. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request[edit]

The arbitration request naming you as a party has been [32] declined by the Committee. The comments at the request may be useful in moving forward. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Third edition (2013) World Braille for download.[edit]

download link. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

french grammar[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami

I see that u contribute to French grammar article. well, in language bar there r Arabic and egyptian languages who r not linked to the proper link in arabic wikipedia bcs there is no article called french grammar in arabic there. I tried to remove them but they r removed from wikimedia but the strange thing is that they r still there in the article. can u fix that and remove them?????? thx Wafaashohdy (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

They were in the article itself, the way we used to do it before Wikimedia. Should be cleared out. If they come back, delete them from the very end of the article, and also from whichever-language Wikipedia is linking back to the English. — kwami (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Either [33] or [34] is questionable. Doing the one is inconsistent with doing the other: If the relationship of Itelmen with CK is not questionable, then saying "related to Itelmen" 1-on-1 means "related to the rest of CK". --JorisvS (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't ascribe beliefs to scholars just because we happen to believe them to be true. We need a ref that he believes it to be true. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Does Fortescue (1998) say anything specific about Itelmen? And what about keeping the sentence as it is, but noting that Itelmen is (currently?) accepted as a CK language? --JorisvS (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but I assume we wouldn't say it's specifically Itelmen if he didn't, like people who connect Sumerian to Semitic rather than to Afroasiatic. We could say Itelmen is CK, but that info is already at the link, and he gives a couple languages as possibilities rather than making a specific proposal, so it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. A comment to that effect would imply that he rejected CK, but I don't know that he did. — kwami (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've asked the person who added it, but he is not particularly active, so I don't know if I'll get a response. --JorisvS (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The source isn't available online? I might have time to look this evening. There are all sorts of reasons he might have connected specifically to Itelmen, so IMO best to be safe. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Found it, though w/o a page number it's hard to check. The relevant passages might be on p. 211. It looks like Fortescue posits a substratum affecting Itelmen and perhaps all of CK, that Haida or a language like Haida is a possible source of that substratum, but that it's more likely to be Nivkh than Haida. I can't find where he posits an actual relationship (he calls Nivkh an isolate), so I'm deleting the claim for failing verification. See also Uralo-Siberian languages, which does not include Haida (or Na-Dene, which Fortescue seems to think might include Haida). — kwami (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've now found it, too. I've also removed the same mention at Wakashan languages. Could you try to find "Whitehouse et al., 2004" (I have failed so far) to see if you can verify this claim by the same editor? --JorisvS (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Whitehouse generally talks about rather fringey long-rangers like Ruhlen that hardly anyone takes seriously. I'd just delete the claim since we have no reason to think those proposals are notable. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Sentence deleted. --JorisvS (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nastaʿlīq script[edit]

I saw your edit in which you changed "script styles" to "Calligraphic hands" in the article on Nastaʿlīq script. I don't agree with your edit, but rather than simply reverting it, I thought I'd discuss it with you. "Calligraphic hands" links to "Calligraphy", and the first sentence of that article makes it clear that it was a decorative art "related to writing". That is not the same as a distinct style of script, or writing, that was, and still is, used by millions of Persians. It is my understanding that, although Nastaʿlīq can be used for decorative purposes, it is really a handwriting style and is what distinguishes the handwriting of Persians from the handwriting of, say, Arabs and Pakistanis. I think "script styles" is more correct.CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The script is arguably Arabic, depending on how you use the word "script". Nastaliq is a "hand", but out of context that may be misunderstood, so I added "calligraphic" to clarify. We don't have a separate article on the topic, but instead redirect to calligraphy. That doesn't mean the word is wrong, just that Wikipedia doesn't have a good redirect. Wiktionary doesn't have a good definition either, but that could be remedied easily enough. The OED defines a "hand" (def. 16) as a style of writing; esp. as belonging to a particular person, country, period, profession, etc. There's cursive hand, book hand, italic hand, etc. Or we could just leave it unlinked, or use some other wording. Perhaps "style of writing" would be clearer, but it seems an awfully ambiguous phrase. There are, after all, different styles of nastaliq.
This damaged metrical record in Persian, executed in Nastaliq hand (Indian Archeology, 2000); She was also capable of writing different kinds of Persian hand like nastaliq, maskh and shikaste (Royal Mughal Ladies and Their Contributions, 2001), [Aurangzeb soon] became an adept at the writing of the naksha hand. (Mughal Empire in India, 2, 1999), nastaliq ... became the principal hand for copying secular manuscripts in Persian (Medieval Islamic Civilization, 2006), It was written by Neamatullah ... in good Nastaliq hand. I also see nastaliq "character", but that would be really confusing. English just doesn't seem to have good vocab for these things; all the words seem to be ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the jocular phonetic alphabet! A coworker and I often use exotic words when using phonetic letters. Now I'll have some more interesting ones to throw at him! Dismas|(talk) 04:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. It's not really mine, though I changed some of the words. ("I" was originally ithyphallic. That and bdellium should get you the site I got them from.) — kwami (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, here it is.[35] I ended up keeping half. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

8-dot braille patterns[edit]

I've been thinking about making all the 8-dot patterns and thought of an idea that I wanted to run by you. What do you think about having, for example, braille patterns 137, 138, and 1378 as a trailing section of braille pattern dots-13? This would put the Luxembourgish and Gardner-Salinas capitals, as well as the GS greeks on the same page as the regular 6-dot alphabetic characters. If you have any concerns that I haven't thought of, please let me know. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe "Eight-dot extensions" or some such. That's the logical place to put them, IMO. I remember Wiktionary doing the same thing. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone through and added them, although I've only got GS8 patterns cited for Greek letters and Latin capitals. I also have the Luxembourgish capitals as well. If you want to go through and record all the GS8 symbols, please feel free, otherwise I'll probably get to it on Friday. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Messing with Unicode[edit]

In Tartessian you changed the HTML superscript used to transcribe Tartessian inscriptions, which has no proble, by a Unicode font which makes the text unreadable, as it makes the superscript characters display as empty boxes "[]". Plase notice this has *nothing* to do with special charcaters used in IE reconstructions such as underdotted consonants and so on. Talskubilos (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Two problems: Your version is not copy safe, and you remove the templating, so even the characters you leave behind are illegible on some browsers. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcription of Cyrillic[edit]

Hi kwami! I have a few questions I was hoping you could answer. I've often seen in articles that transliteration, phonetic transcription and phonemic transcription are mixed in examples for words. Is there some standard to follow? In Comrie and Corbett they always list native script and transliteration side-by-side, e.g. Ukrainian бéрег/béreh. However, often phonetic transcription is necessary to illustrate some points when there is lots of allophony (such as in Ukrainian), or when there is lots of difference between transliteration and actual pronunciation (such as with vowels in Russian). I think that the pair original script/transliteration should always be present, because those examples where only phonetic transcription is given make it unclear what word we're dealing with. Also with meanings - sometimes they are put in quotation marks, and sometimes as tooltips. It would be great if all this mess would be templated somehow, parametrized with language code, e.g. {{example|uk|бéрег|béreh|[bˈɛreɦ]|shore}} , with appropriate templates ({{IPA}}, {{Script}}) auto-selected for provided arguments, and customizable layout. Combination of {{Lang}} and {{transl}} could be used for the first two parameters, but prounciation and gloss are still missing and a unified treatment would surely be preferable.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The template sounds like a nice idea. There isn't any standard, AFAIK. The appropriate transcription will vary from article to article, depending on context. I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this would be, but you'd probably want to give notice at least at the language and writing-system project talk pages. You might also want to check the template that we use for Japanese transcription, which is sometimes convenient but often a pain in the ass when it doesn't accommodate what we want to transcribe, but people insist on using it anyway because it's now considered the WP standard. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've created the template, here is its documentation. What do you think about the second and third bullet points in the Suggested improvements section? They seem helpful but if the template would be used on many words/phrases in a single article, such articles could get very "colorful" with too many wikilinks, so I'm hesitant to add support for that.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple comments: I think the transcription should be the default, not the IPA. That is, an unspecified parameter would be tr, and for IPA you'd need ipa=. Also, the bracket of the IPA could be automated, and it should be formatted as {{IPA}} for better browser support. As for links, that could get quite distracting in an article with much Ukrainian in it. I'd do it manually: trlink=, ipalink=, wikt=, etc., so that the editor can decide whether and when to have links. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"Primary" language families?[edit]

Hi. Is there a reliable source for the phrase "primary language family" (as used, for example, in Template:Language families and Kartvelian languages)? When I saw the word "primary" used to describe the Kartvelian language family, I was skeptical because I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that it meant Kartvelian was one of the largest or historically most important language families — neither of which would be a correct thing to say. But as I investigated further (looking at the heading in the template and its revision history), it became evident that this phrase may be more widely used (and not simply hyperbole from fans of Georgian), and that it evidently refers to a language family not known to be descended from any other. If there is in fact a good source backing up the use of this term, I think it would be desirable to cite it in the Kartvelian languages article. (The Andrew Dalby book cited in that article — currently footnote #4 — appears to have been cited in error, BTW; I looked up the book in Google Books, and it doesn't appear to discuss Georgian or Kartvelian at all, either on page 38 or anywhere else.) — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The use at the top of the nav box especially does strike me as rather unclear. Perhaps you can think of some other wording that would be clearer? The use in the info box is several years old. It was the best wording we could come up with to describe the linguistic classification of s.t. like Kartvelian. (It would be a mistake to call the families "independent", as it's generally assumed they are not, just that their nearest relatives are too distant to be traced. And it would be imprecise to simply call them "families", as Germanic is also a family.) For the nav box I'd like to see "established" as part of it. Doesn't matter if the phrase is used in the lit, as it's merely descriptive, but it would probably be a good idea to have the same phrasing in the lead of the language-family article. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Brought this up on the template talk page. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll give this some thought, and if I can manage to think of an alternative phrasing, I'll get back to you. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kwami. I think here in this template Kartvelian languages family should be seperate from so called "Ibero-Caucasian" as those languages are not related at all with the Northern Caucasian languages and it makes no sense at all being united with those in the template. I suggest making the Kartvelian and Northern Caucasian languages seperate in this template. What do you think? Jaqeli (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes as much sense as many of the other colors. They're just a rough indication of where you are, not a claim of relationship. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Jaqeli (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed the name and link to just "Caucasian". The table isn't a place for specific hypotheses like Chikobava's Ibero-Caucasian, so thanks for pointing it out. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Excuse me,

I put "any type of" instead of "a" in the Serbo-Croatian article for one very good reason: the state was *officially* called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before the name Yugoslav was conceived. The first official incarnation of the name "Yugoslav," as in the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia," came thereafter. This is the rationale behind "any type of" versus "a" as it is actually indisputably more accurate.

Not every edit is a nationalistically-fueled manifestation of discontent. --OettingerCroat (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it because it reads badly, not because I disagree with the content. The two versions mean the same thing.
BTW, thanks for not edit warring. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Braille learning[edit]

Why you have deleted the link to my site where sighted people can learning braille. Tell me an another site for the same way. On my site you can learn and practise, writing with the slate simulator and braillewriter simulator direclty online and for free. Fakoo (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please do not add external links to your own site. That is spamming and is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. -- Alexf(talk) 12:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I don't mind Fakoo linking to his own site. Sometimes "spam" is more useful than what we already have. But Fakoo, I tested your grade-2 conversion with the sample text at the bottom of our braille article, and it proved inaccurate. I reverted so that we would not mislead our readers. (Or at least it disagreed, but if you're correct, we'll need to rewrite our article, and it's up to you to prove that.) — kwami (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW, you can create an instruction manual at Wikibooks. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bhagat Pipa[edit]

Corrected. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

shogi variants again[edit]

I'm making one of those huge tables at User:Double sharp/Maka dai dai shogi: any suggestions about the layout? (My idea was to go approximately by their initial position in the starting setup, splitting them into the groups "promotes to something that isn't a gold general" and "promotes to gold general".)

(P.S. Your new phonetic alphabet is hilarious. Sadly my brain isn't too willing to give me new suggestions right now.) Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I think I arranged some of mine by power/value, but startup position is probably as good a way as any. If they promote into each other, then I would suggest arranging them so that each piece promotes into the one directly below it (except for gold, of course). — kwami (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That situation doesn't occur, so no problem. (I.e. you don't get long promotion chains like in tenjiku.) For now I however seem to have done it so that each piece promotes into the one directly above it...ah well, that's how the dai-dai one does it, so OK. Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

wait, does ja.wp really state that the furious fiend in maka-dai-dai is lion + lion dog? because that's not the same as the furious fiend from dai dai and if I'm not mistaken every other piece that's from both games moves the same way in each. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's like that in tai as well. Weird. I did the cell-splitting for alternatives, then.
(I'm not completely satisfied with my diagram for the emperor...suggestions? ja.wp uses ∞ symbols.) Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
On WP-ja, for Dai Dai, Maka Dai Dai, Tai, and Taikyoku, the only games which have the piece, it is a promoted lion with the same powers. So, do we have a mistake in Dai Dai, maybe? The diagram matches yours for "English sources" (the top one). The verbal description is,
"In addition to moving as a lion, it can move up to three spaces in any direction. When it does this, it cannot jump."
with a footnote,
"In the Shōgi Zusiki and Shoshōgi Zusiki, it 'adds the move of the White Dog to the Lion'. There is no piece called the White Dog, but there's a piece written similarly, the Lion Dog, which moves up to three spaces in any direction."
That agrees with your English-source move for the Lion Dog, but not with the WP-ja article for Maka Dai Dai. So it appears WP-ja is inconsistent for the Lion Dog.
Yeah, the diagram for the Emperor is misleading. It looks like it jumps up to three spaces away. I'd use a single ring of infinity signs maybe. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the limited-range interpretation for the Lion Dog is that it makes the description of the Teaching King redundant. It makes sense with the ja.wp interpretation, but they're not consistent on it. This is about when I start wanting to see the original sources. Well, now my regard for the English sources is rising, for it seems that the only variant they totally misinterpreted was Tenjiku Shogi!
("Moves up to 3 spaces in any direction" could, at a stretch, mean the ja.wp interpretation in the article; after all they did not say whether this move was Lion Move or Limited Range! But that's a stretch.)
Jess Rudolph's Shogi – the Chess of Japan: its History and Variants says that my English-source move for the Teaching King (Free King + 3 square Lion Move) was mentioned (but not advocated) by TSA. I wonder where this came from? (Could plausibly be a misinterpretation of the ja.wp Lion Dog.)
Emperor diagram has been fixed according to your suggestion (a single ring of infinity signs. I chose a cyan background as that colour wasn't used yet.) Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ideally, every piece would have a footnote for the original text plus a (or our) translation. But that might not answer many questions. I suspect that most of our problems are due to the original being so terse that even modern Japanese sources can't be very definitive. If the info just isn't there, or is obviously mistaken, then there's not much we can do. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I change the references to notes within the table, like in dai dai shogi? I'm thinking yes. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I'd include any footnotes in the table, just because it's so easy to get lost. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Still restricting alternate diagrams only to cases where the claimed moves differ greatly, though. Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

your phonetic alphabet[edit]

At the risk of causing my question above (how should I do a diagram for the emperor move in maka-dai-dai and tai?) to not be noticed, I'm slightly disappointed by "yttrium" – I dunno if it's just me, but I find its conventional pronunciation to be much more transparent from the spelling than most of the other ones. Maybe it's because "y" is acting as a vowel here in an uncommon position for English, but then it cannot be anything other than a vowel here with English phonotactics...

(P.S. for P, did you think of Przybylski?) Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"Yttrium" is one of the original proposals, which I've kept for lack of anything better. Not counterintuitive, but not the kind of word you'd expect in an ABC book either. I suppose we could have Ypres pronounced "Wipers". Any better ideas?
I'm not familiar with the name Przybylski. I suspect the horse is better known, unless that's just egoism. But both are too alien to be good choices IMO. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ypres seems good (unless you insist on the French pronunciation).
I find we're overusing Polish words here, in any case. Double sharp (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Whakatane for W? Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have that with wheki. Not sure which would be more accessible. Unless you're in NZ, I suspect Maori isn't much better than Polish. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I was just thinking that we should have a more even mix of languages to draw from here. (I've heard of Whakatane; not of wheki. But this is probably because of its associated Scunthorpe problem.) Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
For y, how about ych a fi (Welsh pronunciation: [əχaˈvi]), which is apparently not in the OED yet, but does pop up in English-language literature from time to time? garik (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, not bad. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
In a similar vein, Fluellen might do for F, especially if pronounced [ɬəˈwɛlɪn]. Nadolig llawen! garik (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The same as Floyd, isn't it? Doesn't the fl indicate that people can't pronounce the [ɬ], and so have substituted [fl]? — kwami (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I made a brief entry for ych a fi at Wiktionary. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, the <fl> in Fluellen has the same origin as the <fl> in Floyd. But I think there's a very blurry line in Henry V between trying to represent the English pronunciation of Llywelyn and attempting to represent [ɬəˈwɛlɪn] using English orthography. But yeah, most people say [fləˈwɜlən], so it's not quite right for your purposes. I'm not sure what would be though. garik (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


Why do you neglect the fact, reference, source and act on your agenda? Discuss at the talk page of Tamil-Brahmi. I have made question and you didn’t answer yet. But, you often revert the edit of other users, and claim as edit war. Come to the talk page and give your reason. Don’t do the same edit war again and again. We create ‘encyclopedia’, not our encyclopedia. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 17:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have given my reasons over and over and over, and you refuse to hear. WP:I didn't hear that is not a legitimate argument. But once again: We have secondary sources saying the script dates to the 2nd–3rd c. BCE. You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE. WP prefers 2ary sources, yet you only report the date from primary sources. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Answer to my question, not others! --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What question? — kwami (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It's in the talk page. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I did answer your question. However, you refuse to justify the citation. I conclude from that that the citation is invalid. Answer there, if you're able to. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What justification you need? Still the questions are there without proper answer.--Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat myself? Can't you just read my question again? The supporting material is supposedly on p. 8. I don't see it. I would like you to quote it, or quote part of it, so that I can see what you're talking about. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See the Tamil-Brahmi and I'd like to discuss there. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Barenaked ladies version?[edit]

Sorry to interrumpt your awesome Stakhanovian pace of work... can you give me a synonymous expression for "Barenaked Ladies version"? something in more plain English? --Davius (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

See Barenaked Ladies. They had a song with those words. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

RE:Pronunciation keys[edit]

Dear Kwami,
Exactly. We, therefore, should use the correct symbols that are actually used in the articles (the low falling tone diacritic is being used in Lao related article). Given that the purpose of the help page is to explain IPA symbols, correct IPA symbols must be used. I will undo your latest undo on the help page.
--Alif Silpachai (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No. It's a *key*. It's not a tutorial of the IPA. A key that doesn't explain the transcription is useless. If you want to change the key, raise it on the talk page, and if people agree, then change all the articles that link to it, and *then* change the key. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case then, if you would be so kind, can you list the pages that use the diacritic? I agree with you that "a key that doesn't explain the transcription is useless." How then does the current key explain the transcription when currently the Lao transcription on the articles seldom use the symbol? What is the point of having an outdated key?

--Alif Silpachai (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how rare it is. A couple years ago we had quite a few articles that used it. The same convention is used for Yueh. Part of the problem is poor font support for the rarer tone diacritics. Even with proper font support, they're not very visually distinctive; you'll notice maybe that not many phoneticians like them much either. Anyway, you need to search the articles that link to the key, and substitute the proper symbol. (For some vowels the diacritic may be hard-coded rather than a separate Unicode entity.) AWB is probably the best way to go about that; you can have it scan all translusions of the Thai/Lao IPA template for the diacritic and vowel+diacritic characters, and automatically replace them with the new diacritic, assuming that's okay with the others who work on the template and articles. — kwami (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you once again. Based on my experience as a student of phonetics (PhD) and who has worked on some tone languages, I have never seen the symbol (the current one on the help page) in the tone literature before. That being said, I will stop reverting the edits, and see what the others will say. To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no standard IPA transcription for Lao. So some people will disagree on which symbol to use.
--Alif Silpachai (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Answered on the talk page there. The double-grave is not a bad idea; I've used it sometimes for low-falling. The subscript grave was used in the IPA until 1989, so that's another possibility. As for an official transcription, that doesn't exist even for English, one of the original languages the IPA was designed for. — kwami (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

RE:NATO Phonetic Alphabet Edit[edit]

Regarding this edit, the source in question actively states as it's first line that this is the universal standard for branches of the US Military. Additionally you can find references to the alphabet standard through training documents on the US Marine site and the US Navy History and Heritage Command site's historical archive discusses the historical alphabets and how new ones are implemented along with why they were standardized to what they are now. --Karekwords?! 12:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, they say it's the ICAO alphabet, but their pronunciation differs from ICAO. The pronunciation we give is from the army, so we credit it to the army. If we had a ref that all branches used the same pronunciation, we could note that; if we had sources that all branches use the same transcription, so they're not read differently, then we could change the header. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good term[edit]

At Talk:Traditional African religion‎, you had a good one "spinning our wheels", laughed really, made a lot of sense for such situation as well :). Bladesmulti (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 :) We do a lot of that on WP. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Rongorongo text C, K ,L N & Q[edit]

Why did you add back a load of images that have not existed since June 2008 (5.5 + years)? KylieTastic (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder they need to be restored. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
After 5.5 years I can't really believe that's ever going to happen! They are not the sort of image people are going to be able to find, let alone 'free' versions suitable for commons - and if you had any then surely you would have already done it! KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
They don't have to be suitable for Commons, and we can justify some of them for restricted use. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, depends on the source and who owns the copyright I guess. Also not sure if images of high enough resolution to be helpful would be allowed by current Non-free content rules. I tried to have a look to see if they were images I could find by had no luck. Firstly one of the ref site on the articles no longer exists (redirects to and my German is a bit limited) - and a google about failed to help. Too much of an expert area my my skill set. Cheers — KylieTastic (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Jamel eddine bouzaidi[edit]


Your new friend's edits to Arabic alphabet may interest you — especially since he put Thaana in the list of child systems.

Espreon (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just made a general revert. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome.
I do have a doubt, though. The article text says that the vowel signs are derived from things in the Arabic script; do you know if the sources say so? If they do, I guess one could say that Thaana inherited the consonants from the various numerals and the vowels (and direction, if they say so) from Arabic... and would thus be able to sanely put Arabic as one of the parents in the infobox, but I don't know what the criteria for these things are.
What say you?
Espreon (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the vowels (or at least a, e, i, and sukun) are obviously from Arabic, and I believe we have sources that say as much (it's been years since I've read them), but since they're diacritics I wouldn't consider that the parentage of the script. And if taana was once a cryptic alphabet, it would make sense that it was purposefully not derived from Arabic. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
As I thought, then: too minor. Gotcha.
Espreon (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi, could you please explain your reasoning for the removal of the pronunciation of Bryndwr syllables from the main text to a reference? (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure: External links do not belong in the body of an article. We put them in references or an external-link section. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)



I see you have reverted the commits I had made to the above page. Could you provide a reason as to why? The words are incorrectly provided there. The character 'त' is not pronounced as the 't' in stable? In fact, the 't' in stable is pronounced as the character 'ट'

Reference: Hindi is my mother tongue and I have also studied it for fourteen years. Also, any of a billion people in India can justify what I said. In addition, my name has 'त' in it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptasanket (talkcontribs) 05:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You said it's like th without the h, but there's no such thing: Th is a single sound, so you cannot remove the h. The other option is to say the sound of त does not occur in English. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok I understand. I changed it as that was the closest I could get. I will change it to say that the sound does not exist. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptasanket (talkcontribs) 05:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Problem is, if you change that one, you'll also need to change the other seven approximations for those two series of consonants. Best to discuss it on the talk page first. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yea, I was changing all of them right now. I can discuss on the talk page first. On whose talk page though? And with whom? Here? Sorry, I just created a wikipedia account to correct that entry and am unaware of how things work with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptasanket (talkcontribs) 05:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright I have changed them for once. I would rather have some say that the sound does not exist than to provide people with misinformation. Feel free to revert it back if you want though. Also, looking at it carefully, there are many more mistakes here and there in that page. If there are dedicated people editing Asian languages, you could probably forward it to them for inspection. Most of them are very obvious things and anyone knowing the language will be able to fix them. Thanks! I am off. Guptasanket (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
On the talk page of the article itself. That way you should attract the attention of whoever has worked on the key. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Take it to talk first. Some of your examples are just wrong. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fatalaku-Makasai languages (East Timor)[edit]

In the article of West Trans–New Guinea languages, it is suggested that the languages of East Timor (and Kisar Island) are only a geographical group, following Malcolm Ross (2005). But a recent paper of Mandala et al (2011) has appeared showing a phylogenetic relationship among these languages. I have added a red-link for Fataluku-Makasai languages, and I have removed the label "isolate" for the three branches of Ross. I have created in addition es:Lenguas fataluku-makasae that can be used for a new article in English Wikipedia. The reference for the work of Mandala is:

You can check it. I have tried to create the new article, but I do not know the reasons I can not to create it, for this reason I am contacting you, --Davius (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Started. But it's not true that Ross thought it was a geographic group: He reconstructed pronouns for proto–East Timor. The languages are 'isolates' in the terminology of Wurm, meaning they are not transparently related. I don't see where Mandala et al. reconstruct the numerals. That's not good evidence for establishing a relationship anyway.
WP-es won't let me add the iw link como "ha sido automáticamente identificada como dañina". — kwami (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)