User talk:Uanfala

Project

Re: the Arcana disambig page: Please refrain from using the word "project" when referring to a band or album. Do you know where you got that usage? I would like to know. Use "band" for band and "album" for album. Keep it simple. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this was the text from the earlier version of the dab page: I guess I should have paid more attention and tried to incorporate the intermediate changes. – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I do not understand, how is WWI (disambiguation) not eligible for speedy deletion? The disambiguation page ends in "(disambiguation)" and only lists one other extant article.

WP:G14 states that "Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page". But okay, I will just nominate the article in WP:PROD.

Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's got two links: to World War I and to Woodie Woodie Airport. The link to the primary topic counts: that's why a page whose title ends in (disambiguation) will be eligible for WP:G14 if it's got one link, in contrast to other dab pages, where the threshold for the number of links is zero. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sarazi

Hey,

If Sarazi is a language, then it should hopefully have a language code. sira1263 should be it. The dialects listed for a language are often wrong. Really, we shouldn't link to dialect codes at Glottolog. My fault, that. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Glottolog has a "language" called Sirajic, with two "dialects": Rambani and Siraji of Doda. As far as I can remember, Sirajic here is an invention of Glottolog, and the two varieties of Siraji and Rambani, though undoubtedly related, aren't otherwise grouped together. We don't have an article about Rambani (though I've been meaning to create a stub about it), and Sarazi language is about the "Siraji of Doda", without Rambani falling under its scope. The Glottolog entity that matches the scope of the article is "Siraji of Doda", not "Sirajic". – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually I ignore the dialect stuff because they're a mirror of MultiTree and so not RS. But it appears in this case that Glottolog did intentionally group these together as one language, which means in their judgement they are mutually intelligible. Anyway, continued below. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol

Two's company, three's a crowd, four's a WikiProject. Sign up if you see fit...

Certes and I crossed paths in 2018, and we ran a campaign on mononymic tsxonomists. We fixed around 1,500 links. It took a fortnight (slow work; a lot of it wasn't easy; I was given the Wikispecies equivalent of WP:AP, because I was being a nuisance). IDK the circumstances, but it looks to me as if Certes and GoingBatty more recently discovered that they were both attacking the same difficult-to-find roll-your-eyes problems. So, I had this Idea for a centralised collaboration, explicitly disconnected from foolishly argued and closed WP:RM/WP:PTOPIC discussions (I could cite at least three major examples without drawing breath). Someone has to pick up the pieces; a WP:MR might be a waste of breath; getting information right is all that matters.

Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Narky Blert, I think this project is a great idea! I don't think I'll have the time to get involved just now, but I've occasionally tried fixing links to dubious primary topics in the past, and I'll probably do so again in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation page sections

Hello. What do you recommend as a title for a disambiguation page section that lists both individual people with the name, and articles about an ethnic group? WP:LONGDAB suggests "People". Or do you think those things should not be in the same section? "People and ethnic groups"? Interested in your opinion, and hope all's well with you, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: The only reason that I can see why someone might want to put individuals and ethnic groups into a single section, is the existence of the two meanings of people: 1) the plural of person; 2) a singular noun meaning 'ethnic group'. I don't think the grouping should entirely hang on the ambiguity of a word, especially when the two categories don't conceptually fit together. Individual persons can be grouped with, say, individual animals, or with fictional individuals; ethnic groups can, in principle, be grouped with other collections of people, like nations, companies or organisations.
Still, contexts may vary and if somewhere it's deemed necessary to group these together (say, all the individuals happen to be prominently associated with the ethnic group/s), then the section title should be explicit about what is included. "People and peoples" would be most succinct, but that's confusing, so I'd avoid the word "people" altogether and go for something like "Persons and ethnic groups". And as for WP:LONGDAB this is one editor's essay (it has some good advice, but it's still just an essay); still, it says ethnic groups should be listed separately from individuals, which I take to mean they should go in separate sections. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. (What's less helpful, I think, is your edit to WP:LONGDAB: as you know, it was labelled as an explanatory supplement until you reclassified yesterday as an essay. The difference is subtle and arguing about it would probably generate more heat than light, and annoy editors more than any utility that might be gained by changing the status quo. I've used WP:BRD but I'd urge you not to further lift the lid on that can of worms, but of course you have the right to do so and you could discuss it on that page's Talk page if you wish). Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to insist here. But supplements, whether rightly or not, are commonly regarded as having more weight than essays, and this implies some sort of explicit consensus beyond one editor's self-certification. You'd need consensus for having it, not for removing it, similar to what you'd do with unsourced text in mainspace: that can be removed by default regardless of how long it had managed to survive, and it's keeping it that would require explicit consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sirazi

Hi. 'Sirazi of Doda' is a MultiTree classification, not Glottolog, and MultiTree is not a RS. I rv'd that change.

As for Poguli, its ISO name is now Khah. If that's wrong, we should still say why readers are being directed there from that name, and someone will need to submit a change request to ISO. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Poguli now has an article of its own. The name "Siraji of Doda", if I'm not mistaken, goes back to Grierson, and it was coined to distinguish this Siraji (or Sarazi) from the two other dialects with the same name spoken in Himachal. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that when I went to recreate it and then to restore the ISO code. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That may be, but according to Glottolog, sira1263 is the language, and all the refs on Glottolog apply to this variety, so you're rating your judgement as more reliable than Glottolog's. Unless you'd prefer to create a new Sirazi *language* article, and move this to the Sirazi of Doda dialect of the Sirazi language? — kwami (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Glottolog's "Sirajic" is likely a spurious creation. I don't think there are any sources that lump Sarazi and Rambani together like that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I see now you've created an Rambani language article. That makes a difference.

What we have in Glottolog is that there is a language "Siraji" (Harald changes Arabo-Persian -i to English -ic, which is weird but unimportant) with the sources provided. One of those sources is Kaul (2006). The code sira1263 also covers the language in Parihar & Dwivedi (2019) A Grammar of Sarazi, and, according to the evaluation of Glottolog, that of Bhat (2012) A Morphological Study Of Siraji: Language spoken in Doda District of Jammu and Kashmir. Glottolog evaluated these along with Grierson 1919 and determined that Siraji of Dodi and Rambani were a single language, [sira1263]. That's presumably a judgement of mutual intelligibility.

So you're judging that Glottolog's judgement is wrong. It may be, but have you concluded from Kaul that the languages are not mutually intelligible, or have you just not seen a demonstration that they are mutually intelligible? — kwami (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, we need to link these articles from the family articles. We can add, say, Rambani to Western Pahari per Kaul and to Lahnda per Glottolog, or as unclassified within Indic -- whatever you think the sources best support, but people should be able to find the languages of a family from the article on that family. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea if the languages are mutually intelligible – no studies that I know of have been performed on that. But that's beside the point. Whatever the exact relationship between those two varieties, they're always treated as separate entities (whether languages or dialects), and apart from Glottolog, the label Siraji will always refer to only one of them. I don't know if it helps clarify things here, but Sarazi, Siraji and Siraji of Doda are exact synonyms; Glottolog's original step is to group Sarazi and Rambani together and then call this new thing Sarazi. Any instance of Sarazi you may see in the literature will refer to "Sarazi", not to "Sarazi + Rambani".
The sources listed by Glottolog are about Sarazi, there hasn't been anything published on Rambani since the LSI, Kaul even conjectures the variety may have gone extinct. Rambani doesn't figure in Parihar and Dwivedi's list of Sarazi dialects, and Kaul also treats the two separately; I haven't seen Bhat's paper.
The two varieties are clearly intermediate between Kashmiri and Western Pahari; most of the recent literature appears to place them with the latter, but that's not very rigorous. Kaul, for example, has very detailed enumerations of shared features with Pahari, but he makes no effort in distinguishing shared innovations from shared retentions or likely borrowings. Feel free to mention them in both language group articles, but just not in Lahnda – Glottolog's placement of "Sirajic" under Lahnda is bogus. – Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that makes things much clearer. What of the connection of Poguli to Khah? Is that just nationalism, or do you think there's anything to it? (E.g. Dhar Nazir Ahmed (2013) 'A note on Khah morphology', Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics, U Kashmir, p 111-124.) — kwami (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My reason for linking to the Khasha was precisely to show that it's a grandiose claim. Why else call it 'Khah'? Do any RS's call it Khah, or was ISO duped?

If 'Khah' is not used by RS's, we probably shouldn't have it in the lead.

Also, if 'Panchali' is not the same thing, please revert me. I just noticed that most of the sources used for the ISO request were for 'Panchali'. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And there's also this by the same person that asked for the new ISO code. If I remember correctly, the claim is that "Khah" has currency among the speakers themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if a popular local name might have been missed in previous studies. It's not very far-fetched either, as there are well-attested names in the region that look similar – there's Khashali to east, and Khāṣi to the west. Though if it's just the promoters of the language that are using the term, and no-one else has mentioned it yet, then maybe you're right and we should not use it in the lead. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like he's claiming Sirazi and Rambani as dialects, and that's implicit in the ISO acceptance. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Minas

Are you a Tolkien fan?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Move history tool

Hi, remember this discussion at VPT? Well I just made that tool I wanted: User:Nardog/MoveHistory. It's been my most popular script so far, which was unexpected. It should probably be a PHP tool hosted on Toolforge rather than a client-side script, but I don't quite know how to do that yet. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Nardog (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, this is such a handy tool. Good job! – Uanfala (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent behavior

Hello, Do you have an RS that states that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th Century? NightWolf¹²²³ 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's about this, right? I'm really not sure what to make of your question. Are you suggesting that there is any legitimate doubt that the Book of Mormon was not composed in the 19th century but actually dates back to four millennia ago? If so, then the whole article would need to be rewritten, with RS showing that the text was indeed created between 2200 BC to AD 421. Articles about sacred texts – and I'm not sure this really needs pointing out – are not written from the perspective of the religious communities for whom these texts are sacred, but have to follow the same standards as everything else on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I have decided, due to WP:NOTTRUTH, I will be leaving it here. I will poke around, but I would rather it be slightly incorrect rather than be blocked for edit warring. Thank you for your comments.

Sincerely, NightWolf¹²²³ 01:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't have very strong objections to that field getting removed entirely, although the information is probably of relevance to many readers and there's the expectation that it should be there (slightly under two thirds of the articles that use the infobox have that filled in). – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't find an RS for either side. What I'm thinking is put my version but then insert a note down at the bottom explaining the controversy at the bottom of the page. Let me know what you think. NightWolf¹²²³ 03:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real controversy to speak of: this is one of those frequent situations where members of one community have a certain view, while everybody else share another. We can't present the insiders' viewpoint as though it was objective. You can see how this is done in other articles: Book of Genesis doesn't claim the text was actually written in the second millennium BC, nor does Rigveda dedicate any space to the idea that it has existed for eternity. The only possible compromise I see here is to just remove that piece of information from the infobox – readers will still be easily able to draw their conclusions from the article's lead. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Please accept this as an apology. NightWolf1223 03:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry if I came across as abrupt. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Saraiki

Man i want to talk to you about article Saraiki Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqmerani (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free, Siddiqmerani, though Talk:Saraiki language might be a better place. I don't know if this is relevant, but the edit that emphasised the dialect viewpoint has already been reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you deleting all the dialects of Punjabi? Punjab means land of 5 rivers and Punjabi means language of 5 rivers. Saraiki/Multani is spoken on the land of Punjab so it is part of Punjabi language family. Multani is a sweet language but it is part of Punjabi language family.

You Multanis are free to develop your language but do not mess with other dialects or I might have to take action against you for trying to hide Punjabi dialects. Wikisuperman07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuperman007 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikisuperman007, the relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: we follow what reliable, linguistically-informed, sources do. We don't adopt the Punjabi (ethnonationalist) viewpoint any more than we adopt the Saraiki one – your edits insisting that Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi get reverted, but so do the edits of those who present it as more ancient than Punjabi or those who claim it's spoken by as many as 50 million people. Much of the treatment of this topic was agreed after long discussions in 2016–2017: you can browse the archives of Talk:Saraiki language. As for the removal of the section on dialects, the reasons are explained at Talk:Punjabi language#Dialects section. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fix ping to Wikisuperman007. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

reversion of my edits on Template:Afroasiatic languages

The reason I greatly expanded {{Afroasiatic languages}} is so that one can navigate articles of different Afroasiatic languages using just one template. The idea is that the templates {{Berber languages}}, {{Biu–Mandara languages}}, {{Cushitic languages}}, {{East Chadic languages}}, {{Masa languages}}, {{Omotic languages}}, {{Semitic languages}} and {{West Chadic languages}} would be gradually merged into {{Afroasiatic languages}} and replaced with different selected parameters on different articles. Why are other big templates allowed, like {{Austronesian languages}} and {{COVID-19 pandemic}} but not this one? -- PK2 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The point of a navbox is to provide easy navigation to related articles: a readers who's at the page about one language will have a glance at the navbox, see where the current article is located (that's easy because of the bolding), and navigate to the languages that are most closely related. That becomes much more difficult when the navbox presents you with the titles of several collapsed sections, and the reader will have to know where exactly the language stands in the classification scheme before being able to locate the languages closest to it. I don't know if having a one-top way of navigating to all languages in a massive group like Afroasiatic is desirable, but if it is, then that's probably better done not at the bottom of each and every Afroasiatic article but in a separate list.
And there's the consideration of size: a navbox with 600 entries is comparable in text length and in html size to a decently developed article, and it's bigger than most existing articles (and with such big templates around, navboxes will probably never get enabled in mobile view). {{Austronesian languages}} is a monstrosity, and I would fully support splitting it into smaller templates. You can see Template talk:Indo-Iranian languages#Split template for a discussion of a similar case. You mention the idea of having a master template with different selected parameters in each article. I'm not sure I can picture that, would you be able to elaborate? And one more thing: when making a large-scale change, it's usually better to not do it boldly, but propose it first and go ahead only if there's support – that way you won't risk spending time on something that eventually gets reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example of a template using a selected parameter:

above, the 'Cattle' or 'R.' group in {{British Isles livestock}} is expanded while the other groups are collapsed. -- PK2 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This takes away one of the two main concerns I expressed above. The other one – size – remains, so I still don't believe the change would be an improvement. You can still propose it and see what others think: this is best done by making a proposal on the template's talk page and leaving notices on the talk pages of the templates that you believe should be superseded. If you'd like to draw a larger crowd, you can also post a notice on WT:LANG. If you'd prefer a formal discussion instead, then you can nominate the templates for merging, see WP:TFDHOW. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The main difference between {{Afroasiatic languages}} and {{Austronesian languages}} is that you can easily split the former while fully maintaining NPOV, while this is almost impossible to do so for the latter. Only Malayo-Polynesian (MP) and within MP, only Oceanic are generally accepted large units, apart from this, we have a lot of relatively compact subgroups of MP. The larger internal structure of MP remains debated (btw, I hope I can add to the "confusion" by publishing a paper this year presenting yet another subgrouping proposal). –Austronesier (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems that most of the Austronesian language articles, whether in observance of NPOV or not, don't use the big navbox but instead have one or another of the smaller templates. – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Then why isn't there a proposal yet to split templates {{Austroasiatic languages}} into multiple templates, even though that one is quite large as well, and only a third smaller than templates like {{Austronesian languages}}, like there was with {{Indo-Iranian languages}} three and a half years ago (see here)? -- PK2 (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Austroasiatic languages has 150 entries, which is just about manageable. There's a big difference between 150 entries and 500. Also, it was for most of its history a flat table, and the current format involving sublists was the result of a bold conversion in October. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from a dummy: can I directly embed a low-order template (like Template:Philippine languages) in a higher-order template (like Template:Austronesian languages), or does that require a third template that only contains the shared part of the code? This won't make Template:Austronesian languages less monstrous, but it can help to synchonize data. I would like to create templates for Celebic and South Sulawesi, two accepted and rather large/structured subgroups, but I want to see first if there's a way to avoid redundancies. –Austronesier (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You can directly plug the daughter template, like here, but this results in a duplicated header. Alternatively, there should be a way to select a specific portion of the daughter template's code to embed in the parent template using labelled section transclusion. There may be other ways I don't know of (I don't do navboxes much), so maybe worth asking at Template talk:Navbox? – Uanfala (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I'll experiment with labelled section transclusion. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Guenoa (disambiguation) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of PROD

• Your reversion of the prod placed on Vimlanand Saraswati asks if I checked the references on the page.
• The reply is yes, I checked all the ISBN links, none of which were found on Google Books. I also checked the programmable search engine we use on AfD.
• Your reversion and reply is pre-emptive. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, in that case my comment should have been less acerbic, so I apologise. But Google Books's coverage is not universal, and it's particularly thin on the ground in this topic area. (This particular book exists, btw, and is even available online.) Generally, when making decisions about notability on India-related humanities subjects, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the literature is offline, it's most likely to be in a language other than in English, and the little that exists in English may use a different transliteration of the name. – Uanfala (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Gender unclear on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, but I only spared 15 minutes to check a few diffs. Maybe this barnstar is an indication that the venue is backlogged and everyone who's had a dabble of it is routinely given a doze of carrots to entice them back? :) – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Palantir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palantir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

30em/xxem/|2/etc.

Hey, thanks for the interest in the columnizing template. You, I see, are a template guy, so maybe you can fix the documentation for that template. It's all automatic now. I'd trout you, but, really, the guy that didn't change the doc after that template change years ago deserves it. Orz... Happy editing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out here. I'm finding this a bit puzzling, so I've asked for clarification at Template talk:Reflist#Column width deprecated?. – Uanfala (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Subgrouping

Wanted to ask about your reversion of my edit on this one. I tend to think of maintenance templates as a strategy to draw the attention of a broader community of editors who may keep track of articles needing additional citations, for example. In my mind, this rationale justifies the addition of "obvious" templates to short articles, but I would be interested to hear your thinking on this. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In principle, yes, that's one of the intended uses of those templates. In practice, this only works for some of them: ones like {{hoax}} that indicate very serious issues and that are used on very few articles, or templates like {{orphan}}, where the problem is simple to fix and there's a system where editors systematically work through the backlog. There's nothing comparable with who {{refimprove}}: it's used on more than 350,000 articles, resolving it for each individual case takes a lot of work, and it's extremely uncommon for editors to dig into such a monstrously big list when looking for articles to improve. The only real purpose of this template is to signal to readers that they should take the article with a grain of salt. There's no need to make such a statement when the issue is otherwise obvious, and a big banner template is actually unhelpful if it takes up more space than the article itself. And for an article of a size like this, the more relevant issue is not that it needs more sources, but that it needs expansion. On an unrelated note, Subgrouping probably doesn't need to exist as an article in the first place: I think it should just be replaced with a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very helpful to hear, and I will take that into consideration in future edits. A quick Google search leads me to agree with you on the existence of the article - searching for subgrouping leads to a lot more information about the mathematical term, and the only linguistics link on the first page is this article. I would support its replacement with a dab page if that were proposed.

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, UserNumber. Sorry I haven't commented in the ANI thread. I don't feel like there's anything quite actionable there, though that user can be a bit of a pain to be dealing with. I'd agree with Austronesier that there might be some CIR at play, and the person may need to have aspects of wikipedia patiently explained to them. That may not be necessary – I don't think it's likely their current enthusiasm will carry them for much longer. But if they do go on, and repeat actions that have already been explained to them as being unhelpful, then some sort of sanction will be necessary (probably may be easier to go the route of WP:AE). – Uanfala (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, I just sent the notice out just in case you were unaware. UserNumber (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lahore literal translation change

Hello, I noticed your change on literal translation of the article Lahore, please keep in mind that Punjab is made of two words, Punj (five) and aab (waters) in Persian. Therefore making it "Five Waters". Please read more about this before you make an uneducated change.

Thank you