User talk:Uanfala

why deleted my page

why you deleted my page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%DD%A2&redirect=no i provided sources but u deleted thats not fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana Zubair Punjabi (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Rana Zubair Punjabi, the page you created uses a source which is not realiable. The letter ݢ has well-established uses in other languages and they are described in the article that ݢ redirects to. You could add some content about the use of the character in the proposed new Punjabi orthography, but only if there are reliable secondary sources that discuss it. There are many proposed orthographies for various languages out there, and we can't have articles about them all unless they are actually in common use or there has been some wider coverage in the literature. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I moved the 5 extra Saraiki letters to Saraiki alphabet. (It's been a month since I read those source, and I don't really have time now.) I don't know where to put this dotted k or the retroflex l, so I mentioned them as possibilities there. It would be nice to at least know which varieties of Punjabi use them. Since retroflex l is ਲ਼ in Gurmukhi, I would think it might at least be used for loans. Maybe that's something Rana Zubair Punjabi could help with? — kwami (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lucy in the Sky (disambiguation)

Thanks for reviewing my SD request at Lucy in the Sky (disambiguation). Submitted an AfD here. There was one thing in your summary that wasn't clear to me: What does PTMS stand for? Nardog (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked: that's partial title matches: entries for which the ambiguous term is part of the title, and hence not usually included in the body of a dab page (though sometimes eligible for the See Also section). – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Nardog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Stub tags

Hi, I think it will be necessary to start a more formal discussion on this one. Where would be the best place to do that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit dispiriting to see them so impervious to feedback. But they don't seem to be doing any more of these edits, so I don't think there's a need to escalate yet. If they start again, maybe I'd leave another reminder on their talk page, and if they still go on, I'd leave a big scary warning template message, and if that doesn't work, then ANI would be the place. – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I don't really think I'd want to template a regular. They did revert one of my reversions but we have two matters at hand - how long is a stub, and where do the tags go, so there is some wiggle room. Let's hope it stops. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Plz include Husnani Baloch,

Husnani Baloch is big tribe living in Tehsil kot Chutta of Dera Ghazi khan, Famous Persons Master Ghulam Sarwar Husnani, Sardar Afzal khan Husnani, Dr M Shahid Sarwar Husnani, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.5.83 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're article where you would like this tribe to be included is List of Baloch tribes? If you provide a source, I'll be happy to include it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Maybrat language

On 13 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maybrat language, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Maybrat language of West Papua traditionally uses a base-5 counting system? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maybrat language. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Maybrat language), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Od is our Caste and oadki our language

Hey brother, this caste is majorly concentrated in India and after it in Pakistan...thats why i put india first on native name...and this is our caste and our language...we know our caste complete name is Od Rajput...they are Rajput by birth for more information i tell you one thing...The Caste Rajput Are descendent of Ram...And Rama is descendant of King Sagara And Bhagirath..and we are also descendent of them...but we used od only because..i history the king have two son and samrat odra was descendant of one of them..and Rajput(who are not od) are descendant of another son...we both are rajput..but because of our Great samrat Odra(who settled odisha)..we use oad..so it we identify ourselve that we are rajput but descendant of Samrat Odra...and i mention link for you..Odisha Ruler..you go on it...and In a section of 'ancient Period' go for title of 'Mention in mahabarata' and see the last point...this king(name not known) of Odra Kingdom that means he id Od Rajput who participate in mahabarata with Pandava..so...we are pure kshtariya.....so plz its my humble request to you from the bottom of heart..plz don't change it again...if you are also Od rajput...then you also our brother...we love you as our brother...and our love is not depend on religion or country...🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdRajput (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry: I was following the older version of ethnologue, which presented Od as a language only of Pakistan. I see that has been changed in this year's edition: I've now tried to incorporate your changes into the format of the article. Now, as for the link between the Od language and the Orh people, that may so for the community in your part of the country, but it might not necessarily be the case for the other segments of the community in other parts of the country or in Pakistan. And regardless, if the article is going to say that Od is spoken among the Orh, then we'll need a source for that: WP:V is fundamental to wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Purgi

As per this[1] argument, shouldn't we remove the template of Pakistan too? ML ⁹¹¹ 19:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Languages of Pakistan lacked a link only by omission. Template:Languages of India lacks one by design: it only links to the major languages. In other words, we can afford to have all Pakistani languages in a single navbox, but the Indian ones are just too many. A possible step forward would be the creation of navboxes at the state level – see, there is one for Tamil Nadu already. – Uanfala (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, I am looking forward to create templates for various regions. ML ⁹¹¹ 20:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• On a different note, the language is spelt in the sources in very many ways. We should include all the spellings so that we can locate information here or in the sources. The spellings are also contested by the locals, when they come around here. Finally, there are also Purigs on the Tibetans side, who seem to use different spellings. It is quite complicated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• And on a yet another note, much of the content of Purgi language would be more appropriately placed in Purigpa. – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Endogeneity in multinomial response models

Thanks for your comment on the PROD nomination. I've taken the article to AFD, with a longer explanation. You may be interested in participating. Wikiacc (¶) 15:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dangerous

Template:Dangerous has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

You may be interested in participating since you commented on the previous TfD. Retro ([[User talk: Retro|talk]] | contribs) 12:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Automated Twinkle talk page notification

Looks like there was recently an update to Twinkle where if a redirect is tagged for RfD, Twinkle also tags the talk page of the redirect's target with a notification of the RfD. (I don't care if that edit gets restored either way, but I do see the usefulness in it ... especially if it is unclear of a redirect is truly eligible for {{db-g6}} or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit hasty in my revert. I'm not a Twinkle user, but I reckoned there ought to have been a box that you can untick so that this message doesn't get posted. Isn't there? – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think so, but there's no harm with the notification stating either way. (I've come to find out the hard way recently that some editors will find some form of controversy even with the clearly and undisputely uncontroversial...) Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but with purely technical nominations like this one that's not really relevant, is it? I think even the curmudgeons you might have recently encountered should agree it's a bit of an overkill to let the tool post on several dozen article talk pages because of an odd pair of parentheses. – Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your logic, but that logic is apparently not shared by everyone. One never really knows who might cry fowl when not notified, even over the least controversial issues. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

South Asia

Hi Uanfala, I am not sure why you say this. They are after all Indo-Aryan languages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the wikicontroversies surrounding the use of the two terms, so you should correct where I'm wrong, but I think that in language article it's more reasonable to link to the cultural/historical area rather than to what is primarily a physical geographical region. I also think that "South Asia" is more readily recognisable to an average reader and it includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives in a more unambiguous way. So, what am I missing? – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, changing the "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia" or vice versa is always a big bugbear. They basically mean the same geographic area, except that Afghanistan is not included in the former but included in the latter.

See WP:ISA, the style advice, and the links to the old discussions at the bottom. I myself go by Burjor Avari's terminology, "Indian subcontinent" up to 1200 AD, and "South Asia" afterwards.

In this particular case, I would say "Indian subcontinent" is the better term because it shows the link to "Indo-Aryan" and "Indic" terminology. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that "Indian" is primarily a cultural signifier, geographical designation followed the cultural identity. So, removing the "Indian" label basically denies the cultural factor, which some people want to do for pseudo-nationalistic reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if 1200 AD is the preferred cut-off point, then we should go for "South Asia", as the article is primarily about the contemporary group of languages. One reason that I forgot to mention is that of the two articles South Asia and Indian subcontinent, as the currently stand, the first has a lot more content that's relevant for a reader who would like to read more about the region. Anyway, I'm finding it difficult to understand why you, or anyone who doesn't have a horse in this race, should feel so strongly about this matter, but I don't have the time to read up on the past discussions and see this fits in. So if you would like to change the links, go ahead: I won't object. Also a note that from what I can see, for most of the last couple of years, the article's lede seems to have used "Indian subcontinent", while the infobox (before this edit from March) has had "South Asia". – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, it is a good point that South Asia is a more informative page. It is funny that I look at this page as one on ancient Indo-Aryans, whereas you look at it as a page on current languages! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thakur

Since you know something about Thakur, would you fix the disambiguation at Cheetah caste and Sarmal Kshatriya Rajput Clan? Thank you.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting these. I've unlinked the word from the first article: that's part of a quoted name, so there's no need to link (in fact, it's ended up as a link only in a recent edit). As for the second article, Sarmal Kshatriya Rajput Clan, it looks like the odd dablink is the least of its problems. Sitush, you haven't seen that one yet, have you? – Uanfala (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

New one to me. Looks a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

"Like that"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the mass creation of talk pages of redirects. If these talk pages will only contain project banners, then creating them is usually a bad idea. You're not planning on doing any more of these any more, I reckon? – Uanfala (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A question

I am a Persian Wikipedia editor and have a question regarding the Northerners article (Korean political faction). I have translated this article but I have encountered a problem and ask you for help, meaning that the words Flesh Northerners, Bone The northerners used in this article are because the words Flesh and Bone have different meanings and what the meaning of this article is about Mohammad behrame cyruc (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad behrame cyruc, I'm not the best person to contact: I know virtually nothing about Korean history. But in this case, the best solution is to find Persian-language literature on the topic (there must be some!), and see what has been done there. Have the terms been calqued with the equivalent Farsi words for "flesh" and "bone"? Or have the original Korean words (yukpuk and kolbuk [2]) been used unmodified? – Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What the heck??

"try the uncyclopedia website"

What's that supposed to mean? What are you, some sort of wise guy? VacationBibleSchool (talk)

• My point was that your contributions would fit in better at the Uncyclopeda. There is a place for humour on wikipedia, but that's outside articles. – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Post-classical history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Post-classical history. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Redirects from Sinhalese-language terms

A tag has been placed on Category:Redirects from Sinhalese-language terms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Croats

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Croats. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

rp -> sfn

As you may have noticed in my edit summary here, I ended up using {{rp}} when I was recovering and merging some citations. I was curious what methodology you use for converting citations from {{rp}} to {{sfn}}? Do you have a script for conversion, or do you just use find-and-replace with regular expressions? Or do you do it manually? Retro (talk | contribs) 22:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You must have noticed me converting the refs at Bangime language, but that was an easy case because pretty much all the citations were to the same source, so a very simple find-and-replace did most of the job (with a bit of manual fiddling here and there). I remember a similar situation in the past where I used a simple regexp to select the right parameter (p= vs. pp=) based on the number of pages cited. Other than that, I haven't used any advanced tools and I don't have any scripts, I'm afraid. That's not really something that I do often. As for the article you pinged me about, do you think a conversion to {{sfn}} would be worth it? There certainly are a few duplicated citations, but most of the references are one-off as far as I can see. – Uanfala (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a question I have about {{sfn}}: is it acceptable to leave some citations in <ref>...</ref> form, while others are in {{sfn}} form? Basically, because {{sfn}} needs a separate "Bibliography" section, is it acceptable to have some references in the bibliography, but some full citations in the other citation section? I think this hybrid form looks a bit messy in an article where it started to occur.

And sorry if I sound a bit scatter-brained: my last edit involved tracing citations that were accidentally inserted wrong (i.e. completely devoid of content), and that took more time and energy than I expected.

Regarding United States Military and prostitution in South Korea, I'll probably end up handling conversion soon myself. There are at least 3 sources that use multiple page numbers throughout the article, so I think it's worth it. And I think I can do it fairly efficiently. Scratch that: John B123 took care of it for me. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered about articles mixing citation styles, but yeah, that might look messy, and it's probably against the manual of style. I don't think sfn necessarily entails having a separate bibliography section: you can have the first instance of a reference fully formatted inside <ref>...</ref> and then all subsequent citations to that source done with sfn (pointing back to that first instance). On a more general note, there's a technical proposal that, if implemented, will remove one major practical reason for converting existing citations into the sfn format. – Uanfala (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Move Language to dialect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goalpariya_dialect#Move_to_dialect 77.13.11.241 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)