User talk:Aeusoes1

From article about constructs to article about term

I don't doubt that this edit of yours to Ebonics was well-intended, but somebody who's skimreading the latter and wants to know about the word now has to click on "Ebonics" in order to find this material. The edit has made the link to an article about the word a lot less conspicuous. (Maybe it was just because I was sleepy, but anyway I didn't notice the link myself when I happened to look at Ebonics a couple of hours ago.) I understand that there was something of an edit war going on at the time; perhaps the annoyance slightly distracted you. Could you perhaps consider tweaking the Ebonics (non-) article to make the link easier to find? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I can whip up a change to address that. Do you think the gay disambiguation page that served as inspiration is equally confusing? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

I have to say that I do find that article rather odd. But first, "Ebonics". Currently, it's

Ebonics was originally coined to refer to the language of the African Diaspora.

How about a simple change to the following?

The word Ebonics was originally coined to refer to the language of the African Diaspora.

And on to Gay (disambiguation); currently:

Gay originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" but since the 1960s (by reapprobation) has most commonly referred to a male (and later also female) whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex.

I fear that "reapprobation" is going to mystify more people than it will help; this aside, I might have:

Gay originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" but since the 1960s (by reapprobation) has most commonly referred to a male (and later also female) whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex; see Gay.

Incidentally, if one clicks through to the latter one's given such nuggets as:

At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay.").

Interesting implication there that "rubbish" is an adjective; this minor matter aside, is it simply a use, or is it a connotation (which I'd expect would go with a denotation)? And if "some parts of the world" and "the Anglosphere" have the same referent, why use both; and if they don't, how do their referents differ? But alas my paying job beckons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

PS on what I kind of called an edit war: Here's the perp; I am not particularly surprised to see the way in which the "contributions" stopped. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you discussing article changes with related WikiProjects?

Hi, Aeusoes1,

Are you asking other Wikipedians with backgrounds in linguistics, especially Wikipedians with backgrounds in Chinese (like me) about your many changes to articles about languages spoken in China? I see you have a statement on your user page about the importance of reliable sources. So I wonder what sources suggest treating (for example) Hakka as a "dialect of Chinese" rather than as a language? And so on. The changes I'm seeing recently from your keyboard to many articles about languages spoken in China would be good to check with relevant WikiProjects. Have you asked for other editors' opinions on these issues? Do you have a comprehensive source about Chinese dialectology or classification of languages spoken in China at hand as you edit? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought it up at the Chinese Wikiproject. I've also researched the matter for contributions I made a short while ago at Chinese language and varieties of Chinese; the process involved the input of a few other editors and came at the tail end of a failed move request that brought up the issue of neutrality on the language/dialect question: it has long been agreed that e.g. Hakka should be referred to as a "variety" of Chinese, rather than a language or dialect, since sources are not in complete agreement on the matter. As I have already told you, this is the nature of my NPOV changes regarding Chinese. I repeat: I am not changing language to dialect.

Anyway, at this point, I am mostly just changing links to avoid redirects. For example, since Hakka language redirects to Hakka Chinese, changing a link from the former avoids redirects. While changing links just to avoid redirects is generally proscribed, in this case it's being done in the process of identifying further POV language. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply here and on my user talk page. I'll review the previous discussion on the Varieties of Chinese talk page, which I have looked at already. There seems to be a severe paucity of speakers of Chinese (any variety) there. Meanwhile, I've been gathering sources, which I will post that talk page. I agree that you are doing important clean-up work by checking how other articles wikify to the terms under discussion. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voiceless palatal fricative may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voiceless labio-velar approximant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | {{lang|got|[[Gothic alphabet|𐍃𐌰𐌹𐍈𐌰]]}}/{{lang|got|''[ai'''ƕ'''a''}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of important note.

That note exists there to let readers know that that using /f/ for th sounds is proscribed and nonstandard. Tharthan (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought that was already obvious. I don't see any standard accent listed there. Peter238 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The other thing is that the use of that phoneme in that way is common in infants and small children, hence why that is mentioned.

Plenty of people consider Estuary English a fairly standard dialect of English, and if th-fronting is entering that dialect, then perceptively it might be reckoned by some that th-fronting is standard. Tharthan (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The note rubbed me the wrong way and your elaboration of its importance makes me feel more confident that removal was warranted. In addition to the heavy-handed implication that th-fronting is akin to the speech of infants, stressing the non-standard nature delves too far into prescriptive grammar, which we are not in the business of doing in linguistics articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, it IS akin to the speech of infants. And in most English dialects of the world, it is limited to the speech of infants. Implying that it is anything more than a rare, nonstandard occurrence outside of Cockney and the like would be lying. For most English speaking people, it is associated with the speech of infants who have yet to learn how to pronounce "th". It is absolutely nonstandard.

Perhaps one day, the entire world with speak like that and there will be no "th" dental sounds. But until that day, it remains nothing more than a nonstandard speech quirk that is recognised as such in most English speaking dialects. Tharthan (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at descriptive grammar. Your characterization of th-fronting goes against the core thinking of linguistics that prestige given to certain varieties is social, rather than objective. You are also likely inaccurate factually in your assessment of its distribution, though we would need sources to verify that. I'm sure you don't mean to be offensive in calling nonstandard speech features infantile baby-talk, but it certainly can be construed that way, especially in the notes column where there isn't room for nuance. Because your assessments are incorrect in theory, in fact, and in manner, that note has no place there. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It goes in the opposite direction as well. If we try to imply that th-fronting is a part of standard speech, we would be lying. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with noting that it is typically found in the speech of infants, as (again) in most places that is where it has been noted. And no, I'm not saying that nonstandard speech is baby-talk. What I am saying is that th-fronting is well known to be a typical feature of infantile English speaker speech, and that that, rather than its appearance in Cockney English, is something people are more familiar with and can understand. The notes should be clarifying things to the reader, so that they don't leave the page confused about what they just read. The note does just that.

I should also point out that Cockney English changed "v"s to "w"s in the 17th and 18th centuries, if I do recall correctly. That feature was parodied in a popular form of Pennsylvanian English at that time. However, save for Bermudan English, that feature died out and never became a standard feature of the language. To speak quite frankly, Cockney English seems to have new innovations to the language every century or so. We can't go around claiming that Cockney English's latest, newest, most happening thing is anywhere near standard. Tharthan (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no implication that it is part of standard speech. The second column in the table clarifies where it appears. Many of the example tables of different sounds outline non-standard or dialectal sounds. It would be inappropriate and irrelevant to mark every non-standard feature as non-standard.

And, like I said, I understand that you're not saying that th-fronting is intrinsically infantile, but there isn't room on that table to provide the nuance you need to not strongly imply that. Moreover, you would need a reference to not only claim that it is not normally found outside of Cockney (which, again, is not true) but that it is a common feature of children still in the early process of English acquisition. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You can find references galore that point out that it is a common feature in the speech of infants. If you insist upon removing the note again and again I will go and find a source for that but it is very easy to find plenty of sources that show that.

Also "it would be inappropriate and irrelevant to mark every non-standard feature as non-standard"? No it wouldn't. Why would you think that. If something is non-standard it needs to be marked as non-standard, lest it give the impression that it isn't non-standard. What are you saying? Tharthan (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask you to bother finding a reliable source that backs up that claim because of the other problems I outlined. These are supposed to be brief notes. If, for example, it is stated somewhere that something is a feature of AAVE, California English, or Estuary English, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated that it's not part of Standard English. This is particularly true for that notes column. The importance you are placing on marking what is and is not standard English (which itself is a problematic myth, since there is no one single standard pronunciation of English) is characteristic of prescriptivism, which doesn't have a place in linguistics articles. It's actually an NPOV issue, meaning that presenting prescriptivist ideas anywhere at Wikipedia should be done as an indication of what prescriptivists favor, rather than an endorsement of what is and is not proper or correct. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I will accept your compromise, but understand that the fact that we have had the same th-sounds since Proto-Germanic shows what the correct pronunciations of those sounds are. The standard pronunciations of those sounds are the ones that have always been known to correspond to those sounds. Tharthan (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not my edit. I still dispute its inclusion. Also, while it's irrelevant to the current discussion, you're not quite right on your historical phonology. Proto-Germanic did have dental fricatives, but their phonemicity and incidence has changed over time. See Pronunciation of English th#History of the English phonemes for the details. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but English has kept both dental fricatives till the present day. It even restored some where they had temporarily gone away ("father" is a good example). Tharthan (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To say that English has "kept" them is an oversimplification. Going with your father example, the word had an intervocalic [d] from the West Germanic period up to Middle English. But this is irrelevant. We're talking about is, not ought, and you're trying to turn one into the other. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glottal stop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uh-oh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Portuguese-based Creoles

Sorry for the late answer. Besides beeing very busy, the access to the internet in Cape Verde may be difficult.

I am preparing my argumentation regarding the edits of Pedro. I generaly assume a good-faith regarding other people's edits but in the case of Pedro I seriously doubt his intentions. See you later!

Ten Islands (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way...

That is a filter that I have on my computer that made those censorship changes to the Norfolk dialect page. I have it on because I have grown tired of next to no one watching their own mouths, so I have to watch it for them, as they have no filter upon what they say.

I sometimes forget to turn it off when editing Wikipedia. My bad. Tharthan (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense. No worries. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Close back unrounded vowel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese phonology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgarian phonology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dzerzhinsky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dutch accent in English

If you're interested in writing about that, you can use Collins & Mees (2003) as a source. Cheers. Peter238 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Catalan

Hey I've just responded to your text on IPA for Catalan. Regards. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperforeignism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raj (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anglophone pronunciation of foreign languages page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Aeusoes1. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is it OK for pronunciation symbols to be Original Research?. Thank you. ----mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Need a guideline about pronunciation of foreign words

Hi Aeusoes1, I am referring to your answer to Alex2006's question. The question was how to act with Italian words pronunciation inserted in articles. You said that, simply, we have to refer to the famous "Help:IPA for Italian", where there are all the indications to give the correct pronunciation needed, and it is sufficient to cite it if there is a dispute about a word. Well, if the standard "syntax" is used, the "Help:IPA for Italian" is automatically cited in the pronunciation: [itaˈljaːno]. That being so, unless there is a dispute about what is written in "Help:IPA for Italian", it should be sufficient to use the standard syntax to add (or modify, if wrong) the pronunciation of a word so that the Wikilink is present. It is not necessary to cite each time an external source: our Wiki is already a guidebook for that, isn't it? Dropping the debate around when it is necessary to insert an Italian word pronunciation and when it is not, I would like to ask only if what I have written so far is right. I need this answer to ask a question about an issue regarding an article containing an Italian pronunciation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.68.233 (talk • contribs)

You are right that we don't need to cite every pronunciation. Though there may be cases when a citation is called for. Our IPA for Italian page gives all the indications on how to represent Italian pronunciation and, insofar as Italian orthography is transparent (that is, the spelling-to-pronunciation is consistent), it can be sufficient. But there are exceptions to this transparency. If the spelling is ambiguous, a call for citations is appropriate. Another case might be where someone asserts that the pronunciation is different than the spelling would suggest. I would say that the burden of proof lies with those who believe a particular Italian word is pronounced in a way that is inconsistent with normal pronunciation rules.

What is the article in question? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, quick reply :-) I could not answer earlier: the spelling-pronunciation is "Pittura infamante". It is very simple, just [pitˈtuːra iɱfaˈmante], there is no ambiguity. The issue is about the [ɱ] symbol: the pronunciation inserted at the beginning had [n] (dental) instead of [ɱ] (labiodental), but it is uncorrect: because a nasal preceding a labiodental consonant ([f]/[v]) is naturally pronounced as a labiodental too, because "Help:IPA for Italian" confirms it, because of this example and this reference about Italian. Other articles containing an Italian word with the sequence "nf" or "nv" are written with [ɱ] without problems. In that article, instead, there is a registered user who keeps on restoring the previous, wrong pronunciation. A friend of mine, who asked for my help and whom I am helping by calling on you, has tried correcting it in last days, but he has always been reverted, even when he added the requested sources in the summary because "Help:IPA for Italian" and the other article are Wiki articles and they cannot be considered as sources. This sounds fairly crazy both because, as you said, there is no need to provide further sources and because the sources for Italian pronunciation are already present in "Help:IPA for Italian" and the other page. I think that was made a giant out of a microbe, the issue is even too simple to resolve, but neither I am a registered user nor my friend is, and we can do nothing if the user who goes on reverting is convinced that he is right and we are wrong... Are we right, aren't we? If we are, may you adjust the issue for us, please? Just by intervening in the article edits to rectify the pronunciation and saying in the summary that [ɱ] is correct without the need to cite new references, if it is so. Thank you.

PS: my IP is dynamic, so it is not the same as yesterday, but it is me.

PPS: I have just had a look, it looks like the pronunciation written now is the correct one, maybe you will not need to intervene any more unless one of the registered users restarts undoing the correct edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.18.187 (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Icarus_of_old, the registered user I told you about, has again replaced the labiodental (correct) [ɱ] with the dental (uncorrect) [n]. Could you please restore the right pronunciation and elucidate that it is he the one who is mistaking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.25.221 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! I did not know that the correct symbol was [m], are you sure about that? I have read that the nasal in the sequences "nf" and "nv" is always [ɱ], but if you are sure I will trust you. Thanks from my friend too for resolving the issue :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right phonetically, but the IPA transcriptions we provide on Wikipedia pages for Italian don't incorporate that. It makes it a little less precise but a little more readable to a general audience. I'll keep tabs on the page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it mean that if a user such as that icarus makes an edit you can see it? Very well! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I have also gone through all the pages that link to IPA for Italian and changed the instances of ɱ and n to m when they come before f or v. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if they were all uncorrect you were right correcting them. If I ever need help in similar situations may I ask here again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes you may. If it's an Italian pronunciation issue, you may even take it to Help talk:IPA for Italian. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Grazie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, I would like to clarify my point. Being Italian, I have on my watch page a couple of hundreds od words of Italian origin. now, for reasons that I don't understand, since a couple of weeks have started many edit wars among ips and several users which, apparently in good faith, are inserting the Italian pronunciation on these article. Personally I am not interested in taking part to these edit wars, but I am very interested in avoiding edit wars in articles that I am watching. That's why I am now removing altogether the pronunciation each time that I see someone changing it. This derives from the opinion which I asked on the manual of style. If you don't agree with what has been suggested there, please continue the thread there, until a consensus ha been reached: the only place to discuss this stuff is the manual of style discussion page or the help page for Italian pronunciation, not the talk page of Tizio or Caio. Thanks. P.S. I don't know if you are Italian, but consider that in Italy there are several regional varieties of Italian, whose pronunciation rules often differs: this is another reason to give, at least in some cases, a reference for the "right" pronunciation. Alex2006 (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a guideline about pronunciation of foreign words

Hi Aeusoes1, I am here again to ask for your opinion and advice about a different matter, that is the insertion of the phonetic spellings (IPAs) of foreign origin words in English. Not just Italian words, words can be borrowed from any languages, but their pronunciation must be quite simple (Russian: "vodka"), not as "zabaglione" or "bolognese" which normally need it. Should we always add the original language phonetic transcription? May we add it but it is not necessary (and if we add it is better to put it in a specific section such as "Etymology" instead of the first line)? Or must not we ever add the original pronunciation of a common foreign word? Thank you.

This is where common sense can help you. If you think readers might not know how to pronounce the word, include it. Different editors have different answers for this. I've seen IPA transcriptions of George Bush. Etymology sections make more sense if they go beyond pronunciation, but they are also permitted. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was interested in this mainly because I would like to add the Italian pronunciation to 2 or 3 English words, and one of these is "Mafia". In the section "Etymology" is written: "The word "mafia" originated in Sicily". Do you think I could modify it in the following way? "The word "mafia" ([ˈmaːfja]) originated in Sicily". Below that paragraph there are the possible etymologies from Arabic, I think it is the best place to place (lol) an IPA. Do you agree? If you do, may you say it also in the "Mafia" talk page, please? There is a "discussion" with just me and another user stalled since two days, and we agree, but a veteran Wikipedian's opinion too would be useful, so far nobody joined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.49.249 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. We could use your help on Help talk:IPA for Astur-Leonese. Peter238 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Flamsteed designation"

Hi. The problem is that 55 Cancri, for example, is not the name of the star. It is simply its designation in Flamsteed's catalogue. (The same is true of Bayer designations.) The star is unnamed, which is why the IAU is proposing to give it a name in its current public consultation. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let's say it's debatable then! :) In that spirit, I've modified 55 Cancri slightly. Are you content? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool! I'll remodify the articles - but thanks for the offer! - though maybe not all today! :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your "recent" edits to the Sesotho grammar pages

Hey, Aeuseos1.

Thanks for these edits (removing the ill-thought-out hover shenanigans for IPA transcriptions).

I do need to point out an unfortunate error in your procedure, though. It would appear that whatever mechanism you were using, was also removing no break spaces in the IPA transcriptions? This has messed up quite a sizeable chunk of my transcriptions, unfortunately.

See this diff, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sotho_parts_of_speech&diff=680935801&oldid=679003686

I can't remember why I used no break spaces there (maybe it was some Unicode issue, or an issue with a browser, I can't remember) but the procedure has unfortunately rendered a large chunk of the thousands of IPA transcriptions completely incorrect when it comes to phonological word division.

Sotho deficient verbs is another page where the transcriptions of the example are completely stuffed.

Your thoughts?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I see what you mean. I can't say the change was accidental, but removing the   instead of replacing it with a simple space was definitely a goof on my part. It sounds like a simple fix, albeit a tiresome one unless you can think of a quick way to put them back. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of anything quicker than reverting the changes and starting again, if that's possible. Tebello TheWHAT!!??