User talk:JorisvS/Archive5

Saturated model

I put a note at WT:WPM asking if anyone knows anything about the concept of saturated models that you were looking for, and would be interested in writing it up. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring of phonological charts

Greetings once again, JorisvS! I have noticed that you have been restructuring some of the phonological charts I have been creating. I was just wondering why you are restructuring them in that way, why that order in the manner of articulation? Personally, I followed the layout put forth in the International Phonetic Alphabet (2005) as published by the International Phonetic Association, with slight changes, but if your order is based on something else, I would love to see it. Pure interest. -- Llonydd (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to mention that when the restructuring is complete, it will nearly have the layout given in that chart, much more than it has now or than it had. The reason I put the nasals above the plosives is that the plosives-affricates-fricatives make such a fitting order and the nasals are, like plosives, stops (also, it's good to notice that the affricates don't appear in the IPA chart at all). The tables on the Archi language and Avar language pages give examples of the endresult. --JorisvS (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really. It seems both the old and to-be versions of the table follow the IPA chart just as much (or just as little, as the chart is very basic). The endresult will, however, be more in line with the typical consonant table I've come across here at Wikipedia, thus making it a little easier to interpret for people used to reading those tables. --JorisvS (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. But well, I really think there should be agreed upon one single standard here on Wikipedia. There are so many different orders, and some of the phonological charts also use very old terminology. -- Llonydd (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite a number of chart layouts can be found here. And that's why, at least every here and there, I've been bringing them in line with this 'typical' outline I showed you. And certainly, those old terminologies should go, they're rather bothersome/confusing. You're welcome to help! --JorisvS (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I've also gone through Wikipedia articles to bring them in line with some standard or other. In the process, I've met with occasional resistance in such a way that I don't believe we can have one rigidly imposed standard. For example, I typically prefer nasals to be above plosives, though it may be more important to indicate their patterning with other sonorants. At Swedish phonology, the chart has approximants between plosives and fricatives presumably because it then allows a quick visual representation of voiced plosive lenition. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in such cases this indeed seems better, as then such phenomena can then be indicated easily. We can't be rigid when pragmatics point to a somewhat different ordering. --JorisvS (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrative evil

If it's a term that's basically been coined and defined by a single book, then it's likely a neologism, which isn't an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. You would really need to provide sources showing that this term is in wider use beyond just the one book. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mhm, well, it sounds like "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source" [italics mine] is the case: both Harvard and Zimbardo are quite reputable, I'd say [1] (that's actually the way I got learned of the concept).

Though, admittedly, maybe I didn't do my homework quite at the right time, but a little googling turned up 21.500 hits, including the following (though I don't have time for a more thorough search right now), including a number by the same authors, but published in various locations that should be reputable.

• Leadership, Administrative Evil and the Ethics of Incompetence: Lessons from Katrina and Iraq, Reflections on the Difficulties of Cultural, Organizational and Individual Reparation, The Problem of Administrative Evil in the Universal Culture of Technical Rationality
• The Etiology of Administrative Evil
• PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION AS DISTRUST? CAUSE AND EFFECT IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS GOVERNMENT
• Watching the Borders of Administrative Evil

So, a quick and scanty search points to an already much broader use of the term. So it might be best to give it at least the benefit of the doubt. I'll look more closely at it later.--JorisvS (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm jumping in the middle here, but I saw the discussion and thought I'd add my 2¢ worth. A quick review of the links provided shows that the term "administrative evil" has been coined and promulgated by Adams and Balfour, the authors of the book cited in the article. Four of the six articles above relate directly to Adams in various publications and seminars. The other two links refer to reviews (and dismissals) of Adams' and Balfour's thesis. I'm not sure this qualifies as giving the neologism "widespread use". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, there's also more to look at on Google (which I still have to do). But it is an interesting question what "widespread use" exactly means, when exactly is it that sufficient people have caught up the term? (Because in this case other authors have caught up the term, but (probably) still in reaction to the original authors.)

Also, I found the {{notability}} tag. Couldn't this be a better tag, at least for the time being, per the text on WP:N? --JorisvS (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(In general) It would have been nice if we could've had a decent discussion about eachother's arguments to at least come to an understanding thereof. Now it was simply "look here, then it's self-evident", even though it doesn't make it self-evident. Also, to bluntly ignore requests for a more proper explanation of one's arguments is simply rude, no matter one's edit count. I hope next time there can be decent discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Laki language

Thank you for cleaning this article, but Laki is not a language. According to Ethnologue and Britannica it is a subdialect of Kurdish language. --Calak1988 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the situation is a little more complex than that. First of all, yes, Britannica indeed states it to be a subdialect of Kurdish, however, without it telling about the Kurdish dialect it is supposed to be a subdialect of; without, in fact, telling much about Kurdish at all, so we can't learn much more than that it does say that.

When we look at Ethnologue we can learn a bit more, though. It does not classify Laki as a dialect (let alone a subdialect) of Kurdish, merely as Kurdish. The difference is at first subtle: as Ethnologue does not explicitly state it to be a language or a dialect within Kurdish it could be either, but when we look at the other members of Kurdish that Ethnologue gives, we see those (Northern, Central, and Southern) classified as members of the macrolanguage Kurdish. Ethnologue only classifies languages as members of a macrolanguage when its members are typically considered (e.g. politically or socially) dialects of a unified language that, in fact, lack sufficient mutual intelligibility, and thus, scientifically, should be considered separate languages. --JorisvS (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Kurdish language page the following can be read:

"Since 1932 most Kurds have used the Roman script to write Kurmanji.... Sorani is normally written in an adapted form of the Arabic script.... Reasons for describing Kurmanji and Sorani as 'dialects' of one language are their common origin and the fact that this usage reflects the sense of ethnic identity and unity among the Kurds. From a linguistic or at least a grammatical point of view, however, Kurmanji and Sorani differ as much from each other as English and German, and it would seem appropriate to refer to them as languages. For example, Sorani has neither gender nor case-endings, whereas Kurmanji has both.... Differences in vocabulary and pronunciation are not as great as between German and English, but they are still considerable." (italics, wikilinks, and bold type mine).

I must make one comment, though: Using a common origin as a reason for considering varieties dialects is bullshit, for then English, Russian, Greek, Persian, Hindi, and of course Kurdish itself should all be considered dialects of the same Indo-European language, which is, of course, nonsense. --JorisvS (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, dear. Good luck! --Calak1988 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, happy to help clarify things. --JorisvS (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing redirects

Hello JorisvS, thanks for your contributions. By the way, regarding edits like this, I should point out that there is usually no need to change links from redirects to direct links. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Swadesh list of Tsezic languages

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Swadesh list of Tsezic languages. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Tsezic languages. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan language

You reverted my deletion of insignificant link from Tibetan language article with an unfriendly comment. Please don't behave like that. It's not an issue of liking or not at all. If we add a link to every country where Tibetan is spoken, then we'll have to add India too. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take such offense, that wasn't intended. Your first edit summary was rather opaque, and could've meant any number of things; for quite a number of people it may well be an issue of liking. If you have good reasons for removing it, no problem. But that is the question: is it really insignificant? Okay, it stands out, doesn't necessarily have to be bad; it wouldn't really stand out in the current version, though. I don't think clear inclusion criteria were used; adding also languages of Nepal and India could be argued. Do you want to discuss it? --JorisvS (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

Hi Joris,

You might be interested to keep an eye on South Slavic languages as well. Same issue with deleting SC going on there. — kwami (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out. --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates

Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of its "special way". No problem next time. --JorisvS (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Userboxes

Dono suport al chapter
Wikimedia CAT.
I vós? Si us plau, signeu en senyal de suport.

---

I support the Wikimedia CAT chapter.
Don't you? Please, give us your support.

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in (small) languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite get the (non-)existence of some chapters, but especially don't get this "because it does not belong to one state" thing, so:

--JorisvS (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot, if you ever need something from me about Occitan, Catalan or else, just let me know I'll be glad to help the best I can, best regards! Claudi Balaguer/Capsot (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Croatian grammar

Hi,

Just a heads-up for Croatian grammar. Several-month-long discussion on merging this with Serbian grammar and Serbian and Croatian grammar/Serbo-Croatian grammar (the latter probably best because Bosnian and Montenegrin redirect there too), with notices given at the languages wikiproject. However, Croatian grammar keeps getting reverted into a content fork, with the argument that it isn't a fork if you give it a different name. I made a stub of what I thought it would be that wouldn't be a fork, but that gets reverted too. I don't really care, though, if it's s.t. along those lines (itself really just a sop and probably mergeable into Croatian language) or a rd. as people had originally agreed. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, but, ehm, what do you like me to do? --JorisvS (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think is appropriate. IMO, the more reasonable voices the better. I've gone back to making it a redirect, as my attempts at creating a non-forked article have been rejected, but there may be other decent approaches. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Breton language

Hi Joris,

Can you translate a short phrase into English for me, please? It says 'Breiz da Virviken Bretagne'. I am going to use it in an article about Breton philately. Thank you, --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How come you ask me? I don't speak Breton, nor have I implied such anywhere. --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Breiz da Virviken is "Brittany for Ever". The root is birviken (or just biken); the b → v after da "to". Bretagne is just French. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find birviken at Wiktionary; I'm wondering though, Wiktionary says that biken means "never". --JorisvS (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, literally "until never" = forever, like French à jamais. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Right...--JorisvS (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(I think that's just due to English having contracted ne (not) ever into never, whereas that hasn't happened in French, and I suspect in Breton, so that biken / jamais "ever" is colloquially used without the "not" to mean "never", and dictionaries commonly translate it that way. Doesn't correspond to English too well either way.) — kwami (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ventureño article

Thanks very much for helping clean up the Ventureño language article. May I ask that you please remake separate columns for palatal and post-alveolar places of articulation? Every Chumashist (including myself) treats the places of articulation as non-interchangeable. I've been studying the language over 5 years now at a major research university, and I agree with the other Chumashists: different columns.

I'll apologize in advance if this seems overly-detailed, but it is important to accurately represent the language. And I do appreciate all the help in cleaning things up and making the article look just spectacular. I would like to include orthographic symbols next to the IPA characters, and would very much welcome help with that if you would like to assist further on the article. Alaquwel (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: why are they so distinct when there is no contrast between sounds of these two different articulatory places? --JorisvS (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First, because the difference between a palatal fricative and a post-alveolar one is audibly different. Take for example English: while we have no phonemic palatal fricative no linguist (or very few) will argue that a palatal fricative and the post-alveolar are interchangeable in the language. Second, because the velar fricative can have realizations that range from the palatal to the uvular in Ventureño. If there were a palatal realization of a fricative in Ventureño, it would be an allophone of the velar fricative, not the post-alveolar. Along those lines, if the reasoning between combining post-alveolar and palatal places or articulation is one of economy, then I'm not sure how one could tell whether to combine those two places or articulation, or the palatal and velar places of articulation. There are other reasons to separate the two places of articulation, such as considering the interplay between alveolar and post-alveolar positions of articulation in sibilant harmony, but these reasons are more complex. Finally, I think it's also worth considering that Drs. Kathryn Klar, Suzanne Wash, Tsuyoshi Ono, Richard Applegate, Kenneth Whistler, and Marianne Mithun all treat the post-alveolar and palatal places of articulation as non-interchangable. I hope you can see that much thought from multiple, very qualified linguists has gone into why the palatal position should stand on its own. Alaquwel (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That there is a palatal allophone of the velar fricative is a good point, and should be properly noted in the article; as for invoking authority: that is not an argument, not even a weak one, and merely detracts from the good points. I believe a phonetic postalveolar approximant [ʒ˕] will often (in many languages) be interpreted as phonemic /j/, something that definitely cannot be said for the fricatives. I don't know about this in the Ventureño case, though.

Please, tell me more about these more complex reasons. --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi JorisvS,
I think you're confusing a specific view of language, one that views parsimony as an end in itself, with language documentation. These places of articulation are distinct in the world's languages; there is no disputing this. Whether or not SOME linguistic frameworks choose to ignore typology and focus on the most elegant reduction of a given language's sounds to the fewest number of phonemic contrasts, it is still true that this language has a palatal approximant that is (was) produced at the palatal place of articulation. The postalveolar sounds, on the other hand, were not so produced. If you collapse them, you are injecting original research (in this case erroneous research) into an article that is otherwise based on the accepted work of real field linguists. Deseretian (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not confusing anything. Parsimony, Occam's razor, is central to science. That is not equal to saying typological concerns are irrelevant, quite on the contrary. I've seen Alaquwel give good arguments for a split of the two columns. What I don't understand is why you (both) don't add this information to the article itself instead of complaining (I expect that you have sources for these).

Yes, within the languages of the world these two articulations are distinct. English itself makes a distinction for some, with [ç] for /hj/. That the distinction is relevant for some languages doesn't mean, however, that we must make this distinction for all. Also, I have nowhere denied the existence of a palatal approximant /j/, merely changed the presentation.

Furthermore, concise presentation is not, in and by itself, OR. If some author very lengthily explains something there is no need for us to do the same here, we merely shouldn't draw conclusions or make inferences the author(s) do(es)n't (which I haven't). --JorisvS (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry JorisvS, but I (or the expert contributor) need not defend what is known: Language X (in this case Ventureno) has consonants at Y places of articulation. For you to go beyond that simple fact without expert reference does constitute OR. And a concise presentation is not the same as confusing (or collapsing, merging, etc.) distinct things, in this case places of articulation, in an effort to further a view of language which you hold. Your statement that 'parsimony is central to science' is largely meaningless, but it reveals that you are injecting your interpretation of linguistics into an article written by an actual expert in the language. There is no consensus among linguists regarding the role of reductionism in the representation of language. And, it should be noted, the current work on Ventureno takes a specific methodological stand regarding the most appropriate representation of the language, one that includes overt marking of the voiceless lateral despite there being reasons to collapse it, as a phoneme, with the voiced lateral. Also, what has the user (of Wikipedia) gained through your confusion of different places of articulation? The table takes up the same space, and the reader must view the same number of symbols in either case. The only difference that I can see between your incorrectly merged table and that of the Ventureno expert is that yours incorrectly teaches a Wikipedia user that the voiceless postalveolar sibilant fricative of Ventureno is palatal, which is not true phonetically or phonologically. Please stop injecting your biases into language articles for which you are not prepared (by education or otherwise) to add anything meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Please stop injecting"? Seriously? As if I have even made more than this one edit like the one you dispute. And apparently you know something about my motives that I don't...that I was (am?) trying to further my own views on language.

You keep telling me that I am disputing that Ventureño's /ʃ/ is post-alveolar and that its /j/ is palatal, again something I am quite unaware of. Whether you find the presentation confusing (yes, among other things) is a whole other matter.

"'Parsimony is central to science' is largely meaningless". Would you care to elaborate on your thoughts behind this? --JorisvS (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Admiralty Islands languages

A request for move has been initiated at Admiralty Island languages. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Decision

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. Courcelles 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be a formality (it's an automated text), as I don't recall anything inappropriate.

Just my two bits for anyone reading, Jorisv has been a breath of sanity in some rather contentious debates. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate that the template says "Further inappropriate behaviour", as sometimes these notices are left without actually accusing anyone of wrongdoing. Courcelles 01:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chamalal people

A tag has been placed on Chamalal people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article now has more context, so no longer qualifies under WP:CSD#A1. --JorisvS (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nederlands-Limburg

Joris,
Please learn the rules before incorrectly marking something as 'incorrect'... - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems I misread it back then. Anyway, a little friendlier notice would be much appreciated (or, well, something that cannot be (mis)construed as offhand); remember we're only human... As a sidenote, notice the space that shouldn't have been there (which, when I think about it, may well have been the reason I misread it)? --JorisvS (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Change in English

I noticed in this edit on Slavic languages [2] that you changed the word "neighbouring" to "neighboring". Was this done for a specific reason? As far as I know, this stuff shouldn't be changed from what was already there, but please educate me on the style guide if I am wrong! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mere consistency: the rest (of the section at least) already used "neighboring". --JorisvS (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, got it! I wonder how they ended up different. The original usage should be the one currently used right? Anyway, on another note, could you quickly elucidate on how Serbian/Croatian are considered one language, but Macedonian/Bulgarian are not? I always thought they had the same similarities. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the differences between standard Macedonian and Bulgarian are considerably larger than those between the various standards of Serbo-Croatian; all SC standards being based on the same (sub)dialect, while Macedonian and Bulgarian are based on different dialects. This would make the differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian more comparable to those between Štokavian and e.g. Čakavian. Were standard Croatian based not on Štokavian but on Čakavian, I think most people would accept Croatian and Serbian as being different languages. I know that Macedonian and Bulgarian are often claimed to be mutually intelligible, but I have yet to see anything more substantial about this than the mere claim. In general, claims of mutual intelligibility often vary, sometimes even being based on rough recognizability or something, making me quite skeptical of such mere, unsubstantiated claims. --JorisvS (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Please, translate this text: Զյիշատակ Ազիզ տիկնոջդաւ Թիլուսիկ կոյլաւեան ծնունդ մհի պաղտասարի ամուսնացեալ'ի Պօթշան ընկա՛լո՛վ տէր եկեղեցի քո հոմորի նորափայլ. Cezarika1 (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask me? The best I can do is see that it's Armenian. Nowhere I have implied I speak Armenian. --JorisvS (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian II

I'd be a bit careful of 3RR at Croatian, given the history of some of the editors. Esp. if no-one's accepted the edit. There are a couple others of us who can take up the slack, and if it keeps up for long we can notify ARBMAC. — kwami (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I kept 3RR in mind, though yes, it could indeed be a good idea to wait as long as it's not yet accepted by someone. Let's see where it goes this time. --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Love the translation requests. I have some Kalaallisut maybe you could take care of for me? — kwami (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
3RR in less than 24h on the article Croatian language. 14:40 3 Oct [3], 16:44 3 Oct [4], 12:15 4 Oct [5]. Kubura (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I got one of these, too. It's hilarious. --Taivo (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've been laughing too.;) --JorisvS (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, take the message seriously. Wikipedia is supposed to be serious project, not a mocking ground. Kubura (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would if you would have. Your motivation for putting this here is all too clear and the one you put on Taivo's page really made me L-O-oh-so-L. 3RR in 27h? Right. --JorisvS (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't see this howler, JorisvS. 2 reverts in 28 minutes.

Have you stopped laughing yet? --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. In any case, while I did stop (though it took some time), I now started really -O-L again...these are really too funny. --JorisvS (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd take out your response in the RfC. It was closed and shouldn't really be modified. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And Mir Harven's... Problem is we were still discussing there while someone just closed that, and I can't just not respond because someone decided to put a box around it. If you know how to take it out without disrupting understanding of the string of posts, then I'd appreciate it. --JorisvS (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen them moved to the bottom out of the box, but within the same heading, although I'm not sure that's standard practise. I alerted the closer to Mir Haven's insertion at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Croatian RfC note, so you may want to ask them. Sorry can't help more. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBMAC

Please note that the article Croatian language and other articles relating to the Balkans fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC. Note in particular Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which states

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Repeated blanket reversions, repeatedly and knowingly restoring material with large amounts of poor English and grammatical errors, and repeated introduction of material rejected by consensus all fall below the expected standards of behaviour at this project. Kubura (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Science and Croatian

Your recent post at Talk:Croatian language has me wondering about how hard we can be with social sciences like linguistics, particularly in the language-dialect divide. Kwami has called Croatian a "language in the sociolinguistic sense" but this is only to point out that there are multiple perspectives on this issue. Greenburg provides 5 perspectives:

1. political
2. functional/cultural
3. historical
4. structural
5. beliefs

Although from your structural (4) perspective, Croatian is just part of a larger language that many call Serbo-Croatian, how is using this perspective to answer the language-dialect question objective? Not only is the mutual intelligibility issue problematic in itself (What percentage of unintelligibility is too unintelligible? Does grammar determine intelligibility or does lexicon/phonology? What discourse situations are relevant to the question of intelligibility? What about differences that don't factor into intelligibility?), but the structural perspective seems reminiscent of the scientistic typological definition of race that attempted to use science to reinforce what we now see as a cultural construct. In other words, how are the other perspectives irrelevant? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed for time in RL right now. I'll get back to you later. --JorisvS (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, it is very much the opposite of trying to use science to reinforce cultural constructs. While people often try to purport their cultural notions as "scientific", these typically break down when they are investigated truly scientifically. Phrenology, racism, creation 'science', or Croatian as a language separate from e.g. Serbian, to name a few.

All these perspectives you've mentioned are valid subjects for research, but mixing them up only confuses things. How about mixing in some political or historical views into personality traits, group dynamics, or General Relativity? These issues surrounding mutual intelligibility are good points, but the only way out is through scientific scrutiny of these problems (including a descent amount of experimentation), not mixing in some politics.

I'm happy to elaborate further on this if you wish. --JorisvS (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian is not a separate dialect from Serbian. It isn't even a separate accent. What we have here are separate registers and standards. These are, of course, legitimate differences, they just aren't dialectologically based. The structural differences come from (1) language planning, (2) ethnically based education, and (3) religiously and culturally (historically) based vocabulary. (At least that I'm aware of.) — kwami (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian as a sociolinguistic language

With all this edit warring on the lead, I thought it'd be useful to have a section in the article on the social language vs the linguistic language. Please take a look at User:Chipmunkdavis/Sandbox, and feel free to edit it if you can, it's quite bad now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly useful, it wouldn't be complete without one. The sentence "However, purely linguistic considerations can be 'outranked' by sociopolitical criteria, so that speech systems which are mutually intelligible have been designated as separate languages" is false. The only useful (I can't say 'valid') use of sociopolitical criteria for this is when purely linguistic evidence is (presently) ambiguous. Linguistic considerations are extremely unequivocal in the case of Croatian. While from a sociological perspective (sociolinguistics) Croatian can definitely be considered a language, structurally there is no ambiguity over its membership of the linguistic unity called Serbo-Croatian. I am at present not certain as how to rephrase it, though. I'll put this on the associated talk page too. --JorisvS (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Might you be interesting in helping here?

I have a list for the whole Nakh-Dagestanian family, with Hurrian and Urartian included (as Starostin and others suggested) in my user pages... here User:Yalens/Swadesh_List_of_Nakho-Dagestani_languages. Since you made the Lezgic and Avar-Andic lists, might you be interested in helping? --Yalens (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In principle I would, but I don't know how much time I will have to invest in it (way too many things to do in RL). We'll see how it goes. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database

Hi JorisvS, thanks for your question. The ABVD analysis has serious flaws, and is highly controversial among comparative linguists. For one thing, it is exclusively based on the lexicon (flaw #1), and even more narrowly, on 200 lexical items (flaw #2), paying no attention to sound change or to morphosyntax. Secondly, and that's a serious problem, it does not distinguish between shared retention and shared innovations (flaw #3), which is a pillar of the comparative method. I could go on and on, but others have done so in publications. Such studies are done by people (whom I know and respect) who have great mathematical knowledge, but little experience in studying the languages themselves, or on processes of language change. I think it's perfectly OK that such studies exist and are cited, as a valuable contribution to the field. However, it is not OK to erase a century of careful subgrouping studies and scholarship (synthesised in Lynch, Ross & Crowley 2002), and invent some so-called "subgroups" (like "Vanuatu" or "Tonga-Samoa", etc.). which have never been supported by more careful methods. The problem is that all Wikipedia entries for Oceanic languages have been entirely rewritten based on this single study, with no room left for the more widely accepted subgroups; that is scary, and unacademic. The risk is to let oneself easily impressed by the nice graphics, or the figures (like the magic "100% support") and rewrite entire language family trees, while forgetting the flawed assumptions that underlie these computational models in the first place. A bit more caution should be exercised here, otherwise we are feeding the (sometimes legitimate) criticism about Wikipedia itself, and its unreliability. Best, Womtelo (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

Croatian language article

I saw your participation in the Croatian language article and thought that you would be interested in this: [6] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You may read this to get what is a sub-sub-subdialect

http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=u7MLAQAAMAAJ&q=isbn:3895862118&dq=isbn:3895862118&hl=zh-CN&ei=mD4sTYmwJIuSuwP5neHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

Grts. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point, I understand full well what such is, by its definition. The talk of "sub-sub-(sub)"dialects makes it really hard to keep track of what is said/written.

Further points:

1. talk of a "first (sub)dialect" is nonsensical: dialects have no order.
2. By the definition of the words 'language' and 'dialect' considering varieties that are not fully mutually intelligible not just dialects, but sub-sub-subdialects cannot be but politically motivated.
3. "a Chuanqiandian subsubdialect of a Chuanqiandian subdialect of a Chuanqiandian dialect" is totally nonsensical language.

For these (and more) reasons I changed or tagged some of it, in the hopes of getting more explanation and less language gymnastics, hoping to get a grip of what was meant to be said. --JorisvS (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In Chinese, it's called tuyu and ci-tuyu (sub-tuyu). The using of "sub-sub" is origined from the book ISBN3895862118. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

By its definition, a tuyu is - a patois/lect. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Read it and you'll know why. Even though it's written in French, the list in the book can be easily understood. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

For example, say:

• Miao yu
  1. Chuanqiandian fangyan
     1. Chuanqiandian cifangyan (Hmong)
        1. First tuyu
           1. Hmong Daw cituyu
           2. Hmong Njua cituyu
           3. Hmong Len cituyu
           4. etc.
        2. Second tuyu
     2. Diandongbei cifangyan (ab Hmaob)
     3. etc.
  2. Qiandong fangyan
     1. etc.
  3. Xiangxi fangyan
     1. 1. Western tuyu
           1. First cituyu
           2. 2nd cituyu
           3. 3rd cituyu
        2. Eastern tuyu
           1. etc.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Instead of addressing my objections, you state what these are called in XX language. Please address the objections, instead of playing a what-are-they-called-in-XX game. (Also, the book won't open for me, please try to provide direct links, and preferably ones I can open) --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that Chuanqiandian subdialect is a proper subset of Chuanqiandian dialect, which in turn is a proper subset of Miao language. When you changed Chuanqiandian subdialect to Chuanqiandian dialect, you mischanged the size of the category. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The concept of Hmong language outside China is the first tuyu of Chuanqiandian subdialect. If you changed it to first tuyu of Chuanqiandian dialect, the issue is: there're several subdialect of Chuanqiandian dialect, and each of them have one or more tuyu (a.k.a. sub-subdialect), so it won't be clear which tuyu is the exact tuyu you want to mention by saying “first tuyu”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

On the origin of the word Gheg

I believe that the hypothesis of the Albanian erudite Pashko Vasa is based on a written source and per this reason let to the author of the section the time and the right to find it. I looked on the web for a short time myself but couldn't find a proper citation of it, except for some vague material. Anyway maybe somebody has a written book or some proper source for it. Therefore I hope you comprehend my removal. With all due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I do, I hadn't seen that these tags were added so recently. There are other concerns, though: Whether some 19th-century guy believed this vs. whether this can reasonably be assumed to be correct (or rather: are there important dissenting viewz etc.?). Doubting the latter is easy, making presenting only this hypothesis POV. But I only thought of this just now. --JorisvS (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

South Caucasian languages

Copied from User talk:ComtesseDeMingrelie#South Caucasian languages

You don't get it, do you?

• a) You don't copy-paste articles when moving them. This way it messes up the article history and the associated talk page's location.
• b) The "discussion" there isn't even a discussion and is super-old.
• c) The first move could be considered to fall under WP:BOLD, but now it is contested you don't just redo it, but discuss it!

Does this make it clear? --JorisvS (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If my move was done badly, you do it correctly. Blank-reverting every single change I made is an easy way out and I do not agree with it. I tried to move the page as I usually do but it did not let me, this is why I had to do it manually. I did not start playing with wikipedia a couple of days ago.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So you copy-paste it?? No, you engage in a move discussion, and if then there forms a consensus to move it an administrator will execute the move. And I'm contesting the move, so I restore the stable version, not "do it correctly". You don't just redo a move away from a stable version twice when contested, so cut the crap and DISCUSS! By moving the page this way, and a full three times, you sure make it look like you've "just started playing with Wikipedia". --JorisvS (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Being unhappy with the move DOES NOT WARRANT the removal of legitimate edits. Do not just CLICK THE BUTTON to revert. I demand that you restore all other changes that did not involve the move/renaming.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Demand?? I'm clicking the undo button because I'm restoring (reverting to!) the stable version, that's what the button is for. And if you request a move, you don't re-copy-paste-move it, you wait. --JorisvS (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat it again. Whatever you think I did wrong by moving the page, removal of legitimate edits was unwarranted. End of the story.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true, they may have been good-faith, but good-faith edits may still be reverted when they're contested. And just answer here instead of my talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, then your talk page will be clean while mine will be full of this filth, demonizing me while portraying yourself like an angel. When you reverted the changes, you mentioned that only the move/the method of moving was contested. If you contested the good-faith edits, you should have said that but you did not. You invented this now after realizing that doing the revert manually would represent an undue hardship for you.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be crytal-clear from what I've said and one that it's contested, gee. And.. I'll copy it to my talk page if you'd like, but I do like to have the discussion in its entirety in one place. --JorisvS (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:South Caucasian languages#Requested move. Dpmuk (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also please by aware of the 3RR rule - doing more than 3 reverts in 24 hours can get you blocked. Dpmuk (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not need to be reminded of that, thank you.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 08:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Greek gk

I was under the impression from WP:GREEK that an initial γκ should be transcribed as g. Per this edit. am I missing something? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are several ways of transliterating Greek, see Romanization of Greek. And as I sort of explained in my edit summary transliterating it as <g> has [at least the potential] to create confusion, because the difference between [g] and [ɣ] is lost that way. It isn't really wrong either way, though. --JorisvS (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, we might want to do something about this at WP:GREEK, then. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also good to keep in mind the difference between Ancient and Modern Greek. I've never seen e.g. Modern Greek ω transliterated as ō (but I don't dare to claim I've seen all). Also, WP:GREEK gives <y> as a possible transliteration of both <γ> and <υ>, which are quite distinct. And where did the remark about the diacritics come from? AFAIK one does not want to compromise precision when transliterating especially when completely unnecessary, which is precisely what happens when they are omitted. --JorisvS (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Luzon

The figure you removed was the total number of islands in the Philippines, so good removal, but when one discuses Luzon it could mean not only the island but also the political unit. I don't know how many islands there are in the unit, but it's definitely more than one. Hope that's useful, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It would be better if these were covered at separate articles, less ambiguous at the very least. --JorisvS (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I used to think like that, once thought of making a separate Hokkaido article, but in the end I couldn't justify the duplication of content to myself. In the end I figure if it covers a huge island then having small islands also included in the article wouldn't be very detrimental. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the geographical info in the article on the political unit is carefully kept to what's absolutely necessary (maybe a paragraph or two) and vice versa, it should be possible to have minimal content forking. I do concur, however, that having an article on the huge island cover also the small nearby islands wouldn't necessarily have to be very detrimental. In the case of Luzon, though, I'd say it would be best to have two articles, one on the island and one on the archipelago, and note that the latter is dominated by the former, keeping the info on the separate subjects as restricted to their respective articles as much as the situation allows. A lot of care would be needed to decide what info goes where, but it should be possible. --JorisvS (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly Luzon (and for that matter most Philippine articles) doesn't really have enough information to make the split anyway. I think there's a case to be made though, for the idea in general. I think if it was done you'd have summary information in the political article, and have no main articles derived from it. Say you have Luzon (political unit), in the Geography section instead of {{Main|Geography of Luzon (political unit)}} you have {{Main|Geography of Luzon|Geography of Mindoro|etc.}} with Geography of Luzon focusing only on the island. On the other hand I think Politics of Luzon would have to be about the political unit, there being nothing special about the island. What would you say if someone proposed something similar to say Tasmania?

Interesting

It will be interesting to see your proof that van Reeland referred to the alleged Austronesian group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) See the Talk page of the article on Malagasy and give your quotation from van Reeland there before producing anachronisms. No one mentioned the alleged Austronesian before 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The source supports the wording I restored, not yours. Plus, Malagasy is not part of the Malayan languages. --JorisvS (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Shona Language

I am not a linguistic researcher, but I definitely know my language, my culture and my people much better than you do. Your claim that Manyika and Ndau are not part of Shona contradicts every text-book, that I have studied all the way tpsecondary school. Besides being a native Shona speaker I have studied Shona up to GCE Ordinary Level, and you know what, there is only one Shona examination right across the country . Besides that I am an ethnic Manyika and I am surprised that you are insisting that I am not a Shona speaker. Since you claim to the expert, can you tell me who is Shona. Do you even know where the word Shona comes from. Mind you all of us people now called Shona today did not call ourselves Shona just three generations back. Do you even know what the difference between say Zezuru and Manyika is amounts to. I can tell a Zezuru speaker apart from a Manyika speaker the moment they speak their first word even if they are speaking exactly the same word.

In academic terms I am to you what is called a raw source. Instead of trying to educate me on a system and language that I was born into, raised in you should be seeking to learn the intricacies from me. Manyika and Ndau are two of the five dialects of Shona the other three being Zezuru, Korekore and Karanga. Please don't tell me the authors of all Shona textbooks are wrong.

Mind you some of the names listed on Ethnologue are mere European mispronunciations of Shona names or Shona words spelt using Nguni syllables (Zulu, Xhosa, Swati, Ndebele). For examble Bazezuru should be vaZezuru. No such word as Bazezuru exists in any of the Shona dialects including Zezuru itself. I can easily pick up such inconsistencies. You can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punungwe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

TNOs

FYI, I've tweaked your edit to standardize on British English ("colour") instead of the US "color". Thanks for catching the inconsistency; however, looking back through the article history, it appears to use British English from at least five years ago. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please try to take care not to also revert some unrelated changes in the process. --JorisvS (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

East Franconian

Hi, in your latest edit of "East Franconian" You use an incorrect map. (Oberdeutsch 1945). German Wikipedia "Oberdeutsch" has a correct one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Verbreitungsgebiet_der_oberdeutschen_Mundarten.PNG Nuremberg and it´s surroundings speak East Franconian, but Eisenach and surroundings don´t. For more information see also http://www.ostfraenkisches-woerterbuch.de/, a project of Bavarian Academy of Science, Mundartforschungsstelle. I´m not a linguist but east franconian "native speaker". Greetings Kleeblatt (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I merely found it and put it in because it's much more legible than the map that was already there. I suspect it's pretty easy to change the map I've put in the article to combine it with the one you've linked to. I could look at it this weekend. --JorisvS (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alveolar trill in German

Hi, I added added two examples for the rolled r in Germany. The first word "Schmarrn" is a Bavarian dialect word, the second is normal German. I used both examples to show that even in High German in the final sound the rolled "r" is used e.g. in Swiss, parts of Austria, parts of Germany and South Tyrol. So I would suggest to have both examples. One for dialect and one for High German. --Buachamer (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's possible, because, if I understand it correctly, Schmarrn would need to move to its own entry under (Austro-)Bavarian anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Votes and Votyaks

Do you think that all readers of Wikipedia fully understand the difference between Votes and Votyaks? Or between the Votic language (водь, водский язык, т.ж. Водская, но и Вотская пятина!) and the Votyak language (воть, вотяки, отяки; вотский или вотяцкий язык). As far as I know, they are very often mixed up in consonance outside Russia. --Злобин П.С. (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No. But when such a "not to be confused with ..." is necessary it should be a) at the top of the page (cf. the format at Kele language (New Guinea), and b) it should be clear why it is necessary. And Votyak as an alt name for Udmurt was (is) not mentioned in the article about it, making the comment come out of the blue. But I guess I may have been a bit lazy for not looking into it and trying to address these things myself. --JorisvS (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Béarnese dialect and Alexis Peyret

Hello, I saw your tag on this page and I tried to add Peyret's Cundes Biarnes edited in Argentina on French National library but it is rejected as a link. Do you know if any thing can be done about that. The link is http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54303959.r=alexis+peyret.langFR. Best, --Lembeye (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, never mind, I don't know why, but now it the link is accepted. I took the ref request for Peyret because know it is linked to its argentine edition at the BNF. about Despourrins folk song I added two other sources. Could you please check and tell me you think about it? Many thanks, --Lembeye (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Poetry and literature are not really fields of interest of mine. I just came by, saw big claims, claims that need sourcing badly, and tagged them. I haven't looked at the references in much detail, but I seriously doubt that the Ligam-DiGam site could be a source for the claim "The main proponent of this view is Jean Lafitte, who publishes Ligam-DiGam.", because it would basically amount to someone self-proclaiming to be the 'main proponent' for something. As for the other sources, you could take a critical look at them and see whether they precisely claim what the sentence they're supposed to reference claims (only worded differently). --JorisvS (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was only talking about Despourrins and Peyret, about literature and strong facts that happen more than a 100 years ago.

LigamDigam/Lafitte, from my point of view is clearly self advertizing. It is not easy for me to remove it (it is clearly what I would prefer and what I would recommend en eventually what I will do) since I am not on their side and they are part of a very polemical attitude againt anything including the word "occitan" and trying to demonstrate that Bearnese is part of gascon, both being completly separated from occitan. The paradox is that they gather with other groups of Langue d'oc (technically a synonym of Occitan)- especially in Provence -) in order to claim local norms of orthography. Best, --Lembeye (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence about Lafitte to be more neutral, though it may still give him undue weight. I doubt that a link to a page with folksongs can reference "his poems are still Béarn's most emblemetic folk songs" (do they really claim there what we claim here?). Note also the part I have underscored here: "most emblemetic" is an extraordinary claim and very easily non-neutral, so would need very good referencing (though it is probably better to simply reword it). As my French is far from fluent, I can't really say much about the link to Peyret's poetry (currently ref number 5). I have done some more copy-editing and placed a few tags where I think the page could be expanded or improved. I couldn't find the sociolinguistic study myself, but maybe it's easier for you. --JorisvS (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Velar nasal in Portuguese

The velar nasal, as I wrote, exists in Portuguese loanwords. For example, merchanding. It changes most of the phonemes, but preserves the "-ng". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.149.191 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your source? If it's "personal experience", then that is original research and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. If not, please cite the source. Note that there is no mention whatsoever of such a phenomenon at Portuguese phonology, nor at Portuguese language. --JorisvS (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello JorisvS/Archive5! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thanks . . .

. . . for the Wikt link fix ("Vasconists"). I had done that before elsewhere, but for some reason I kept getting a "you can look this up in" box. Cheers -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ET life

Hi JorisvS, I almost made a mistake reverting your apparent correct edit in "ET life", luckily this didn’t happen. Even so, by some reason, I feel I should apologize to you. By the way, please let me explain other thing: As you obviously know, according to WP:ALSO: "See also can have links that may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question". In spite of all that, unfortunately there was an hidden and opposite opinion (completely biased and rude) to this policy in that section demanding what an editor could place there; and said again, unfortunately violating this WP:ALSO and NPOV. I removed that biased opinion and temporary replaced by an informative (and polite) alert (not really an opinion) that clarified these violations of wiki-policy. I myself intended erase it after a while; probably you did it too soon, but no problem. Academictask (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Because the article covers ET life in popular culture, I couldn't disagree with (the spirit) of your edit. This also made any hidden comment obsolete (as it was rather lenghthy, I felt I had to characterize it somehow, though it wasn't simply some unfounded opinion piece; apologies on my part for that). Then I noticed that the See also section contained rather many links. So I decided to remove the links that were already present in the article (per the MoS). This just happened to include all those of the popular-culture part (after adding a few appropriate links to the article body). I understand how at first sight this must have appeared to you. --JorisvS (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:€2 Italy Torino Winter Olympics.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:€2 Italy Torino Winter Olympics.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA are liars

It will be interesting to see you prove that NASA are lying and that Kepler never wrote in 1596 about the space between Mars and Jupiter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --JorisvS (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

Please, explain your self. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That page has been regularly vandalized by POV editors trying to push their separate-languages POV, which is contrary to the scientific consensus: The various standards are all easily mutually intelligible and hence part of the same language, no matter what its speakers might want to believe. Was I mistaken in identifying you as one of those, despite your edit? --JorisvS (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific consensus cannot stop the fact that language is not official today. That is the reason i edited the article. Do you have some objection with the fact that language is not official anymore? And it would be vise to be careful with calling other user a POV vandal, without even slightest remembrance of good faith. Thanks for your understanding. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You removed the phrase saying where it was spoken (while moving the the part about when it was official up). That triggered me. I'll give you some good advice too: Next time, try being more careful when deleting good information. --JorisvS (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DPs

I sympathize that it's a bit difficult to follow Ortiz's English with any great certainty, but I wonder here how "Orcus qualifies to become a dwarf planet" wouldn't mean that it meets the criteria of being a dwarf planet. Not that we need all three sources, but given all the drama, it might be a good idea.

Also, could you review these,[7][8] as both Sheppard and the IAU note that they may turn out to not be DPs (as unlikely as tat eventuality may be), and I think that wording reflects the sources, though it can probably be improved.

(Oh, and now Sedna as well, despite Kheider accepting the changes.) — kwami (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Ortiz does, but his wording doesn't unambiguously say so (and hence technically makes it OR). Given all the drama I think it is a good idea to only include those sources that unambiguously say so (but, yes, as many as possible).

As for Haumea and Makemake, maybe it is better to just call them DPs, note that they were (originally) included because of their abs. mag. (incl. ref!) and then say that not all astronomers consider these to be certainly DPs (again with ref)? This would change as little as possible and hence create less fuss, which creates a bigger likelihood that such properly sourced pieces of information can make their way into a article.

And I see Ruslik is now inserting his own POV weasel wording not at all supported by the references: "It is thought to be a likely ..."[9]. --JorisvS (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Some POV inserted here, if you wouldn't mind.

To reduce drama, could you change the wording for Haumea & Makemake? Though if we follow Sheppard, they are "likely", as Sedna and Orcus are. More widely accepted, of course, but Sheppard is a RS we shouldn't dismiss, IMO.

BTW, a slightly more recent Tancredi ref. Can't link directly from WP, but you can enter it into the address window manually:

first: http://www.google.com/

then: url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CCwQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Farticle_S1743921310001717&ei=P7wFT5btC4n9sQLkpMmQCg&usg=AFQjCNEPgt0xnS-QeNJJ2PG7_lAu3xuBqw

— kwami (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find that link. I'll take a crack at Haumea and Makemake in a minute. --JorisvS (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It works. Make sure you keep the slash between the two parts of the address. The paper is Physical and dynamical characteristics of icy “dwarf planets” (plutoids). — kwami (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it took some more trial and error to get it to work, but I have it now. Really weird that simple direct linking[10] doesn't work. And why is the way you linked it on WP's blacklist?? Anyway, I'll take a look at it now. --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can link it this way: [11]. --JorisvS (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruslik0 is back to censoring the article, because the IAU ref on DP naming is evidently not adequate. I don't think that trying to placate someone that biased will help any. IMO we should just report what the refs say up front. — kwami (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, could you take a look at Template:Moons of dwarf planets? The whole point of that is navigation. I don't see why we can't allow Orcus and Quaoar, though maybe a change in wording is in order. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's complicated. Anything that suggests more universally accepted DPs than the IAU five will get reverted. Try adding a row with 'DPs accepted by some' or something.

Also, could you point me to the IAU ref about the absolute magnitude thing of Makemake and Haumea? I can't seem to find it now. --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking too. I remember it from earlier discussions, but all I can find off-hand in the IAU rule for H > 1 getting named by the planetary naming committee as DPs, then the press releases that the planetary naming committee named those objects and announced they were DPs. I've written the IAU and asked where the reason for acceptance has been published. — kwami (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I just read one of Ruslik's comments reverting the addition of Quaoar and Orcus to the template: "These two are not dwarf planets"[12]. It illustrates how people feel about this. Yet I can't imagine how these could possibly turn out not to be DPs.

As a bit of constructive criticism, I must also point out to you that adding dubious tags to Makemake and Haumea being DPs only serves to make the other contributors less open towards your other contributions and hence makes them more likely to get reverted. And who wants that? --JorisvS (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How's that?

The 'dubious' tags are not there because I doubt they're DPs—I don't, but because the wording is inconsistent and reflects bias for some sources over other, perfectly good ones. I'd be happy at using "is" only for the 3 known DPs or the 9 "must be" DPs, but not for a definition based on H when H is not part of the definition of a DP. Do you know a tag that might be less contentious? It's really biased, not dubious, but the bias tags I know of are all section tags, not inline.

I still find it difficult to believe that in a scientific topic the majority of editors would base factual claims on their emotions rather than the best sources. I keep thinking that if we get more editors who know what they're talking about they will outweigh the nuts, but maybe that isn't going to happen. But if so, it just gets worse: at that point we need to think about revoking FA status. Not being able to follow sources is an embarrassment. — kwami (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I understand that, and I don't doubt your motives. I'm just trying to help. It is that tagging that that way sends the wrong message. I agree with you about the emotions part. I don't understand that either. But since they do, it would be best for us to keep that in mind while editing, because then we can accomplish most. For example by making smaller, well sourced changes. As for the tag, maybe {{POV-statement}}, or better yet, gradually make small sourced changes to improve it. Discussion about it is also possible, but is only constructive if we carefully take others' emotions into account. --JorisvS (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He's back.[13] — kwami (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

your comment on my article

Hi, you placed a clean up tag on my new page, Defensive attribution hypothesis. I've reviewed the page and made changes. Should I remove the tag? Thanks for the help. Dr Ashton (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

With the current layout both tags are very much still valid, and thus shouldn't be removed. If you want to improve the article, it will be helpful not to treat it as another psychological literature review or something similar. It could also be helpful to look through the Manual of Style and related pages, e.g. WP:MOS/layout. If you have any more questions, I'm happy to help. --JorisvS (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

79360 Sila-Nunam

Hi,

The double name for a double object implies it's the name of the system and not the primary. Would affect the wording of the 'satellite' section. Trying to confirm. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments if you set up your email. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of that, too. Yet JPL calls it 79360 Sila-Nunam, but the Patroclus–Menoetius system 617 Patroclus. So we'd need confirmation before we act on the hunch. --JorisvS (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is confirmed. To be published shortly. — kwami (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen

Hey JorisvS with respect to this edit [14] there is a specific consensus against adding many of these hyphens. With the consensus being that we will follow the medical literature. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Laki language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurmancî (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) 11:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

email

Could you activate your email? I have some comments to send you. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Activated. --JorisvS (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Enceladus (moon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bifurcation (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) 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a link to a dab page because I'm uncertain myself. --JorisvS (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Tsakhur language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nasal consonant (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) 10:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Neptune trojan

Hi Joris - nice job on the expansion of Neptune trojan. Just a note I wanted to mention: please be very careful to paraphrase the sources? "may as well be a long-term resident that happens not to be perfectly dynamically stable" is super-similar phrasing to the original text. I'm COI'd out of working on the article now, but I can do an expert review once you're done with expansion if you plan to put it through GA etc. Iridia (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit afraid of accidentally saying something the source didn't mean. At any rate, I expect to rephrase and -word everything once I have incorporated more sources. But maybe it couldn't hurt to try to rephrase the few things I already know I'm not happy about. And thanks for the offer of expert review, I will take it when the time comes. --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Satellite-planemo candidates

¹How so nowhere near big enough? You didn't look at their size estimates did you? --JorisvS (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say 'these are not confirmed'? Obviously, satellite planemos are not dwarf-planet candidates plainly because they're satellites. --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that satellites could be classified as dwarf planets in the future. The original IAU proposal called for Charon to be included among the dwarf planets. Serendi^podous 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's speculation about whether the definition of the term "dwarf planet" will change, thus crystal ball. Satellites currently aren't, even Charon isn't.

I'll repeat the question part because I would like a (plain) answer to it: "What do you mean when you say 'these are not confirmed'?" --JorisvS (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Their radii estimates are too uncertain. The error bars are too high, so there won't be a consensus on their size for some time. Serendi^podous 17:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. What makes them candidates is that their best estimates place them within or above the size range in which icy bodies will become round. They may turn out to be smaller and not be round, but that is taken into account by calling them candidates. --JorisvS (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say in response to what I have said? --JorisvS (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My gut reaction to this is simply that we have a whole list of objects whose shapes have been determined to a fair degree of accuracy, and a group of objects that have not, and I would rather keep the page focused on those objects with determined shapes, while limiting those that have not. Serendi^podous 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can understand why you would. There is currently, however, one problem with that: The same applies to the DP candidates section. These objects' shapes are not known (some do have known light-curve amplitudes, though others have not), otherwise these would be considered DPs, not candidates. --JorisvS (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I said "limiting" and not "excluding". This list was made years ago, when it was pretty much assumed that the IAU would make Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar and OR10 dwarf planets any day now. Because in the literature, those objects are often referred to as dwarf planets anyway, it seemed best to have a place for them to avoid confusing readers who thought they were. Serendi^podous 07:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This rationale still makes the DP candidates section rather problematic, IMHO. Why some are included while others get excluded eludes me. 2005 QU₁₈₂ may be bright, but it is also very poorly known (I haven't been able to dig up much more about it than info on its orbit and a tentative spectrum). On the other hand, Ixion and Varuna are (probably) relatively small, but better studied. (Of course the inclusion of Sedna, 2007 OR₁₀, Quaoar, and Orcus is obvious). --JorisvS (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could come up with a better criterion for inclusion, such as brightness or "strong acceptence" as DPs based on the lists in List of dwarf planet candidates. Serendi^podous 10:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I then think it would be best to have this based on actual measurements that suggest that the object is a DP, like in this study (if you can access it) (a similar table is also included in this paper (in which Eris's listed size is worse but Sedna's and Makemake's are better than in the former)). --JorisvS (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather base the criterion on something concrete and uncontroversial, rather than one astronomer's conclusions. Especially after the hell we've been through over the whole "Sedna's a dwarf planet/no it's not" debate. Serendi^podous 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you know of something more appropriate than measurements, then please, be my guest... And of course we would use as many sources as we could find (not just Tancredi) and include only those objects they agree on. --JorisvS (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The original criterion for the DPC page was brightness. But yes I'd be OK if there was a plurality of sources. Serendi^podous 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Immunology

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Solar System

Thanks for the cleanup; I added that reflist for preview purposes then forgot to delete before submitting! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thought so. You're welcome. --JorisvS (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Homogenous surface?

Have you inspected the image on high resolution? It has nowhere near a homogeneous surface, I won't revert it anymore, it is on Wikimedia released as free image, if it is used or not, I won't bother about it. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I had to really look for surface features. Ehm, are those dark areas supposed to be albedo features, not an effect of lighting (as it suggested to me)? --JorisvS (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It was based on both HST image and in the actual text for its appearance which describe Pluto as "one of the most contrastive bodies in the Solar System", and its colors varying from "between charcoal black, dark orange and white" and [Buie et al.] "significantly less red than Mars and much more similar to the hues seen on Io with a slightly more orange cast". Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for comment

As you are an experienced editor and in particular has been very constructively helping damaged articles, your opinion would be very appreciated in this, as yet, non-consensual and critical talk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Terraforming

Hi JorisvS, would you be able to change the 1 column of bullets in the "See also" section into 2 columns? I think this would increase readability and compress the section a bit (which is needed as it's huge). And there's also the fact that i don't know how to change it to 2 columns. Thanks for reverting my edit with the moon by the way, i was unsure about that and it didn't appear to offer any real benefit. Thanks again Jenova20 15:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Three columns now. --JorisvS (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks Jenova20 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit

On Cham Albanian dialect I reverted (eventually) the source misrepresentation of Euzen, but unfortunately I didn't notice that I reverted your edit at first. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's no problem to revert a misrepresentation that I did not notice. I would appreciate it, however, if you would redo my copyediting that you inadvertently reverted, instead of leaving that to me. --JorisvS (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ceres

The point of the awkward wording here[15] was to avoid the question of whether KBOs are 'asteroids'. Maybe it's not an issue. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ural Altaic fantasy

Ural-altaic languages are not supported by Scientific Societies/Academies of the World and Hungarian Scientific academy doesn't support it. All great national encyclopedias (English Britannica, American E. Americana, German Brockhaus E.,French LaRousse, Encarta encyclopedia deny the Ural-Altaic fantasy.

See: Hungarian turnism article. Hungarian turanism is strongly related to Hungarian fascism and Ferenc Szálasi too. Hungarian turanists hated the idea of Finno-Ugric language family, but they lost the scientific language debate locally (in Hungary) and internationally (Europe Americas). After that they started to propage the Ural-Altaic fantasy theory. It wasn't successful too. Please don't support Turanism (including Ural-Altaic family) fascism and Jobbik party.--188.36.107.161 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Read books about it: https://www.google.hu/search?complete/search?client=serp&hl=hu&gs_nf=1&ds=bo&pq=%22ural%20altaic%22%20%22ferenc%20sz%C3%A1lasi%22&cp=101&gs_id=14&xhr=t&q=On%20doctrines%20of%20Hungarian%20racism%2C%20see%20J.%20A.%20Kessler%2C%20%22Turanism%20and%20Pan-Turanism%20in%20Hungary%2C%201890-1945&ech=2&psi=EhUHUMG5G6Kj4gSz672UCQ.1342641432015.5&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=IxUHUI_WJ-r64QTYl5yqCQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.107.161 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I know of the very limited support for Ural–Altaic. I am not supporting it by undoing your edit: What the other proposed branches of Eurasiatic are is just not relevant (and the way you added it breaks the sentence), and primitive political ideologies like Turanism (or any other, for that matter) are irrelevant to the lede of an article on a proposed language family, which is, in principle, scientific, not political. --JorisvS (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

DPs

Since people appear to have accepted your wording on the moon template, maybe we've found a solution. Perhaps you could try the main article again? If I did, I'd probly be opposed on principle. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it piecemeal, so it may take some time for me to get through it. --JorisvS (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Uralic langs

Requested semi-protection for all Uralic language articles. (Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection) — kwami (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few articles the anon edited and you missed in your round of reverts. I've reverted those. --JorisvS (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish language

I've reworded this, attributing the two positions. I can't see why you left in a source that didn't back the statement, and in any case those two sources don't back the claim " Systematic comparison of Kurdish with other Iranian languages shows that Kurdish is a northwestern Iranian language" - indeed the article makes it clear that Kurdish is not a unified standard language and that not all Kurdish speakers can understand each other. I'm sure it can use improvement, but reverting to the old version was not the way to go about this. As for the Infobox, Infoboxes are often misleading in that they present only a black and white view of what is often too complex to be represented that way. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't look at the sentence as a whole! Sorry about that. Anyway, it seems OK now. --JorisvS (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a lot of edit-warring going on around this, partially in an attempt to prove that the Kurds are the Medeans by saying that they both spoke northwestern Iranian languages. Sock puppets, you name it, and it drives my head in. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Permic languages

Thanks for correcting my addition of Finno-Ugric and Finno-Permic to the tree at Permic languages. I was also coming to the conclusion that they would be better left out. I have added some text regarding the traditional taxonomy. Also, the articles on Komi language and the three varieties need to be harmonized. I may take a shot at this, and would certainly welcome any corrections. --Amble (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye out for anything I can correct. --JorisvS (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Calcium–aluminium-rich inclusion

Hi, I dont care which version of dash is used in the article name that you just moved, but I'd at least like it to be consistent since there are two dashes in the name and now they aren't the same. dm (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is only one dash: between calcium and aluminium. The one of "-rich" is a hyphen. --JorisvS (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this now. I'm sure I'm missing something extremely obvious, but why is one a dash and one a hyphen? dm (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The relationship between 'calcium' and 'aluminium' is symmetrical (WP:NDASH, 2), one is not subordinate to the other, whereas 'rich' is subordinate to 'calcium–aluminium' (Hyphen#Compound modifiers/MOS:HYPHEN). The inclusion is rich in calcium and aluminium. --JorisvS (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, MOS:Hyphen is a fascinating read dm (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lowland Semang language

Linked to Spurious languages, per Ethnologue. However, we mention a(nother?) lang by this name at Aslian languages#Endangerment and extinction. Don't know if that means we should redirect or create a stub? — kwami (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know (yet). What language family would the spurious "Lowland Semang [orb]" have belonged to? Can we tell anything meaningful about (Aslian) Wila'? And is it certain that that isn't a spurious language? These things we should know first. --JorisvS (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Dongxiang language in Arabic script?

Hi! On Dongxiang people two images have been labeled as Dongxiang language in Arabic script:

   http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Flickr_-_Omar_A._-_Linxia.jpg
   http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Flickr_-_Omar_A._-_IMG_2200.jpg

While I have some understanding about Dongxiang language, I cannot read the Arabic script. But we would know much more if you could tell whether these images are actually in Arabic or rather in some other language? Thanks for your help! G Purevdorj (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The best I can do is say that to me it looks like something in the Arabic script. I cannot read the Arabic script either, I cannot say in which language it is written. --JorisvS (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Trojan

JorvisJorisvS, we can play edit tag for all eternity or we can actually talk about this. "Trojan" is a proper noun. It is ALWAYS a proper noun, regardless of the sense in which it is being used. "Trojan" is capitalised because it refers to the city of Troy, just as "Londoner" and "New Yorker" are also always capitalised. Serendi^podous 11:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It refers to a class of objects, which makes it a common noun with respect to its meaning. "Trojan" as meaning an inhabitant of the city Troy is semantically a derivation of a proper noun that, like "Londoner" and the like, should be capitalized. However, "trojan" referring to the objects has no semantic relation to the city Troy, and the term merely originates from that city's name through a chance association. The word is more akin to "moon" (natural satellite), which is itself also derived from a proper noun: "the Moon". And in any case, it is also often written in lowercase. --JorisvS (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

When you actually look at the list of things named for residents of places, such as frankfurters, hamburgers, or Berliner sausages, whether one chooses to capitalise the letter is largely down to convention, and in this case, nearly every scholarly article that mentions the Neptune Trojans capitalises "Trojan", as does every article on "Mars Trojans", so I think we can conclude that "Trojan" is always capitalised. Serendi^podous 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Serendipodous, Trojan/trojan is a common noun. We capitalize it because it's derived from a proper noun. Same as American, which is also a capitalized common noun. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JorisvS - The term "trojan moon" is not capitalized because it refers to to a class of objects, not a unique group that has achieved proper noun status. You would capitalize the word in "Trojan moons" if you were (somehow) referring to moons of the city of Troy. Embram (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For hyphens. Rothorpe (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --JorisvS (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Typos

Thanks for catching that typo in Solar System - it was appreciated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, that's what it's Wikipedia for;). --JorisvS (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural satellite

As I said in response to your comment in my talk, I have no problem with changing "most every", but I disagree with the way you edited the passage, because you have made it less precise. The way you have written it, the language literally reads that a plural number of natural satellites follow a single (i.e., the same) orbit, and that regular moons are tidally locked to respective primaries (plural), which leaves it ambiguous as to whether each regular moon might have more than one primary. What is wrong with leaving at the way I wrote it, except changing "most every" to the more formal "almost every"? Embram (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I overlooked one element to pluralize. Now it should be unambiguous about it. As I said, "most every" is ungrammatical English, so "almost every" is not just 'more formal'. --JorisvS (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree. Changes to grammar like this (involving phrases) become acceptable and even grammatical with use, as long as they do not cause confusion or violate some basic rule of grammar. "Most every" is grammatical, though informal, in American English. See link, for example: http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/most_1

But I do not object to your removal of "most every." However, you have not answered my question: with the exception of "most every", what was wrong with the alternative version of the passage, which was more precise before you changed it? "Almost every regular moon (a natural satellite of a planet following a relatively close and prograde orbit with little orbital inclination or eccentricity) in the Solar System is tidally locked to its respective primary…." Your changing it added a grammatical ambiguity as to number (how many respective primaries each regular moon has), as well as leaving no clear antecedent basis for the natural satellite in the final clause of the sentence. I cannot win arguing with you about it, since you have reviewer status, but I urge you to consider the question fairly and change it back (or allow me to change it back) to the more precise version (except using "Almost every"), and remove the antecedent problem (perhaps change it to each natural satellite). Embram (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Check my edits, specifically the one that says 'missed this'. Unless I'm missing something else, it should be good now. What exactly is your proposal with the 'each'? --JorisvS (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrase their respective primaries still has the same number ambiguity, but while I think the singular version of the passage superior, I would not press the matter or even bother changing it (or the antecedent problem) now that I think about it, because I think most people would understand what is meant the way it now reads.

Incidentally, not that I never make mistakes (I do sometimes make them), but just as background, I have been a patent attorney for nearly twenty years, so it is my business to be critically precise with language where necessary, particularly with regard to matters of number and words like "respectively," which is why I changed that passage while editing. Embram (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's good to be critically precise about language when writing an encyclopedia, so no problem there! Could you spell the ambiguity in "their respective primaries" out for me? --JorisvS (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a small matter and as I said, I think people will normally understand that you mean each natural satellite is tidally locked to its respective primary, but (for example) if I were a patent litigator trying to defend against a charge of patent infringement by my client's widget, which comprised a number of knobs each of which was connected to a single (respective) shaft, and the plaintiff's patent recited "a plurality of knobs connected to their respective shafts", I might take advantage of the fact that the word "shafts" is plural by arguing that "a plurality of knobs connected to their respective shafts" requires more than one knob each of which is connected to more than one shaft. To avoid that problem, the drafter of the claim should have written "a plurality of knobs each of which is connected to a shaft" (or "to a respective shaft" or "to its corresponding shaft" or something similar, depending on the situation). But as I said, that level of specificity may be necessary in patents, but (I'm guessing) not in an encyclopedia entry where readers would normally assume (unless told otherwise) that each satellite has only one primary, and the phrase "satellites locked to respective primaries" could literally mean one primary to a satellite, as well as more than one, so it's not wrong per se. I only changed the passage when I came across it (while editing for another reason) because I'm used to correcting to that level of specificity. I expect you're more expert than I when it comes to the standards of clarity needed for encyclopedias. And by the way, thanks for catching "most every" - I hadn't realized it was an Americanism. Embram (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As you said, readers will normally not misunderstand it. In this case especially so, because a moon can only have one primary (whereas your knobs could potentially have more than one shaft). Therefore, while legally it is subject to multiple interpretations, there is only one that also makes sense. --JorisvS (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite so! Context is king. Embram (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Glasgow effect

I appreciate your edit, though it seems the article's main contributor is having trouble accepting what seems obvious to you and me. You may want to contribute to the talk page discussion on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will try, though for me your explanation on the talk page is very clear, and hence I don't know what is needed to make him understand it. --JorisvS (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Moksha language

Hi, JorisvS. Pls kindly comment what exactly seems dubious to your opinion? Prosecutor's Office information? Or the fact that the source information is in Russian (not in English) and not clear what exactly was said? --Numulunj pilgae 16:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

I've explained it on the associated talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet Pre-2006

Noting your edits on Eris (dwarf planet) and Makemake (dwarf planet), you state that "they have been DPs all along (or would not have been that at all)".

I was simply trying to be true to the fact that the words "Dwarf Planet" did NOT fully exist prior to the International Astronomical Union reached their final decisions on August 24, 2006. As such, was trying to say that they were announced in 2005 as new TNOs, and were later designated DPs (once DPs were finally defined in 2006). This might be important to the articles - but then again it might be too technically correct to make a difference. Your thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Before 2006 the categorizations (including the associated labels) were rather limited. Eris did not become a 'dwarf planet' because we suddenly came up with the category and the word. Prior to 2006, we did not label it as such, because our understanding and vocabulary was more limited than it is today. It is a dwarf planet because it is round (and has been for billions of years) and has never cleared its neighborhood, which are things independent of our knowledge or understanding. The dwarf planets have been dwarf planets for billions of years. Note also that this means that the bodies that are currently dwarf-planet candidates are only candidates to us because of our limited knowledge about them; they are in fact either dwarf planets or not (we just don't know). --JorisvS (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

move request for 79360 Sila–Nunam

I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Swadesh list of Lezgic languages for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swadesh list of Lezgic languages 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/Swadesh list of Lezgic languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

		The Space Barnstar
		The Space Barnstar, for excellence in contributions to articles about outer space. Thank you for updating, expanding, and improving articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --JorisvS (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Likely and probably

Yes, 'it's very likely a...', as with '...most likely...', sounds okay to me. British speakers usually use 'likely' on its own as an adjective, preferring 'probably' for the one-word adverb. I've tried to stop altering it but sometimes I can't resist! You say Brown makes a distinction between them? Rothorpe (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at the source: [16]. --JorisvS (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So 'likely' is more probable than 'probably'. I didn't know that. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Belgian Limburgish

Yeah, the term might not really be best. It's a synonym for Central Limburgish, as most Central Limburgish dialects are spoken in Belgian Limburg. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Venetian language

I think your edits about Venetian are sensible, nevertheless someone reverted my edits to Romance languages template. Any idea how to fix it? Cheers--Carnby (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I think linguist haven't completely figured out its exact classification. According to Italo-Dalmatian languages Venetian is part of that group. Maybe a solution could be to add languages that have such an uncertain classification to both groups and add a sign that says so. --JorisvS (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi JorisvS, could you please explain me this? Thanks in advance, Jón ₊ 16:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If a wikilink intentionally links to a disambiguation (dab) page, it should always point to "XXX (disambiguation)", even if the page itself is located at "XXX". This is for maintenance reasons: Most links to dab pages are unintentional and should be corrected. To easily identify which links are correct, intentional links to dab pages should be handled as I have described. See WP:DABNAME. --JorisvS (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, could you please delete Merkel (disambiguation) and move Merkel there? My intention was that "Merkel" becomes a redirect to Angela Merkel (see Goethe --> Johann Wolfgang Goethe) as she is the one that you first think of hearing "Merkel". Thx, Jón ₊ 16:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't delete it, just like you. You'd have to ask an admin. --JorisvS (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey JorisvS; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dravidian languages

I am not sure why you have a problem with the perfectly reasonable use of dialect and tongue or linguistic family as synonyms to avoid the rather unprofessional reuse of the word language repeatedly in the same sentence. You haven't explained yourself. I will report your next reversion as edit warring. Please explain why these perfectly applicable words are such a problem for you, and offer an alternative instead of just reverting. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Dialect" is wrong: dialects are mutually intelligible. Languages are not. "Tongue" means the organ and is occasioanlly misused to mean language. I don't know what's "linguistic" about a language family; using this is imprecise. Reusing the word "language" is, in fact, professional, because it is precise. --JorisvS (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping?

Talk:Sibilant#Brazilian_postalveolar_fricative

It seems people often think palatalized palato-alveolar ≠ alveolo-palatal. So Catalan and Brazilian Portuguese are grouped in a group that is not the same of Japanese and Mandarin. Though I think it is still notable that some may regard it as alveolo-palatal. One of them making the reasoning that the Brazilian palatalization differs from the Italian palato-alveolars, and theorizing a Tupi influence on the Portuguese of the early cabocla São Paulo that expanded it by migration. The other, clearly using different symbols for Brazilian and European Portuguese, and saying that the coda postalveolar /S/ of Brazil may either be palatalized lamino-alveolar and palatalized lamino-palatoalveolar. But Luizdl disagrees with describing it alveolo-palatal for the sake of simplicity (or doesn't believe at all that it is palatalized, in spite of two sources saying so). I already explained that, as I then already imagined, the East Asian and Iberian alveolopalatals were different on his talkpage on Portuguese Wikipedia, but discussion there wasn't productive and further inflamated the feel, with him saying in a not very subtle way I don't understand bollocks and that he doesn't really care what anglos agree with but I just won't put my bullshit in "his" wiki-pt... and he made it clear that he meant so. Editing the sibilant article myself encompassing all views would be undue (or rather not...), and simply reverting him would perhaps make a [bigger] problem for me in the future. Thanks. Lguipontes (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you like me to do? What do you think should happen and what does this Luizdl want? --JorisvS (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For you to give your opinion. I believe it should be mentioned that some languages have it as alveolo-palatals (Japanese and Mandarin) and other kinds of palatalized palato-alveolars (BP and Catalan), though I don't know if other Wikipedians would agree with such usage. I think he is skeptic and wanting to deny that those sounds in BP are "unusual" in any way (though the source he provided says that they don't mean that BP sC/zC/-s/-z, ti, di, x, j is your average European palato-alveolar, that it isn't even uniform across languages, just that those are closer to such sound than the Japanese – Canepari said that the East Asian alveolo-palatal has rounding and is articulated in a point very different to that of BP, so it isn't news in any way). Lguipontes (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have an opinion about something unless/until I am at least somewhat informed about it. AFAIK neither palato-alveolars (palatalized palato-alveolars are actually a tautology, AFAICT) nor alveolo-palatals are uncommon/unusual. And neither is rounding, really, English palato-alveolars are typically somewhat rounded. There exists a whole continuum from alveolar through postalveolar to palatal (and on to velar etc.) and from subapical through apical and laminal to dorsal. A language's "(post)alveolar(s)" will be somewhere on this continuum, and to a certain extent this will be unique to the language (and then, of course, there is variability in it). For Wikipedia, it all comes down to what the sources say and, obviously, which sources appear to be the more reliable ones (and if there is a tie, we should report them both). Does this help you?--JorisvS (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it, I was late for my check with a new doctor and I messed up postalveolar with palato-alveolar. Sometimes it is used in free variation, after all, and I believe that the source Luiz presented seems to treat them that way.

You can check the links on Aeusoes1' user page, the 3rd last section.

It seems people associate "true" alveolo-palatal only with a dorsal point of articulation. The symbols here in Wikipedia associated with alveolo-palatal articulations in general are used to Canepari to transcript Japanese and Mandarin, and he describes it as "bilabialized prepalatal". The Brazilian Portuguese, as the Catalan, postalveolar is the non-labialized palatalized lamino-postalveolar, what is pretty different, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to group it rather with European sh (though I believe the sound of Japanese better approximates our pronunciation than that of English or European Portuguese...).

Are you sure? I don't want to be reverted back again, and again, and again, anymore. I try to use Canepari here since, idk, September, and it never works. When the fellow editor Aeusoes1 agrees with me that it is reliable, Luiz appears and contradicts me. :/ Lguipontes (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Which source would I have to check? Although there seems to be some disagreement, the description of alveolo-palatals from the article seems to indicate that it is typically something like a prepalatal and between dorsal and laminal. Of course, truly dorsal postalveolars and laminal (pre)palatals are also possible (even apical velars are!). Before I make a judgment, I'd like to know what sources do we (you and Luizdl) have, what do they specifically say, and how they support their statements. What is the source Aeusoes has mentioned, the one that contradicts Canepari with formant data? --JorisvS (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I slowed the rate of the debate as it is a bit intellectually expensive for me, and at day 28 I got a strong headache. xD

The sources are the 5 or 6 links in the relatively recent section I created in Aeusoes1's userpage and the section Luizdl created on the article talkpage. Irrespectively of language used, together the 3 authors lead us to the conclusion that Brazilian Portuguese got a sibilant position different from both the European and East Asian ones; that Portuguese in general got a laminal postalveolar; that the difference of Brazilian Portuguese from European is that BP has it palatalized and non-labialized, while Euro has it non-palatalized and compressed. Luizdl's failed claim is based on the fact that the only source that uses formant data (of a single Brazilian speaker, from an area with an insular and conservative dialect, also fluent in English) uses the language laminal palato-alveolar for BP making it distinct from dorsal alveolo-palatal for Japanese (neither me nor Canepari never claimed it was the same of Japanese). Aeusoes1 agree on using Canepari. I endorse almost every bit of Canepari, it leads to the conclusions I defended for years here in Wikipedia but lead to the disbelief on my edits due to instances of OR. I don't know the opinion of you guys (Wikipedians other than Luizdl) if the source using formant data rules out the other two (Canepari and the other Brazilian) even if its language does not proposes the comparison we want, namely the disclaimer "we aren't saying European [ʃ] are all the same" after saying "Brazilian [ʃ] is mispronounced by the Japanese as [ɕ]". Lguipontes (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bhojpuri edits

Hi, I raised an issue about user Mywikieditbh (aka 192.151.243.xxx) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents# User:Mywikieditbh that initially concerned North India but I also added mention of the Bhojpuri language article and made a claim that you may wish to review for accuracy (since I wasn't personally involved in this article's editing). Also, have you had any luck communicating with this editor? Thank you. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

in magnitude

Hello JorisvS,

I reverted one of your changes to the 55 Pandora article because I find it common in the referenced academic papers for authors to write of a 'variation of X in magnitude'. I think the use of 'in' does a better job of indicating a range rather than a specific value. There was no offense intended. Praemonitus (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That way it doesn't have a proper unit. Variations in, for example, temperature are not indicated by "... in K". I've now changed it to be more clear and indicate a proper unit: "a brightness variation of Δm=0.22 mag", which is the typical way other variations in physical quantities are indicated. --JorisvS (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving KOI-172.02 to Kepler-69c

Thanks for your help with moving KOI-172.02 to Kepler-69c - *entirely* ok with me if you would like to complete the process ASAP - as well as with the related Talk:KOI-172.02 to Talk:Kepler-69c - Thanks again for your help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could look around for an admin and ask him/her to delete the pages that are in the way to move the three relevant articles. If I were an admin I would simply have done it myself. --JorisvS (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - yes, may try {{help}} on Talk:Kepler-69c page & see - thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - all now seems to be ok - thanks again for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done You don't know how to move an article, do you? You simply recreated the article, making the delete USELESS. What you should do is use the 'move' button at KOI-172.02 to rename it to Kepler-69c. You should not copy-paste the contents under the new title. --JorisvS (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction - yes, procedure is new to me (my 1st time w/ this) - lesson learned - thanks again - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Try again  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. The page has been moved.  Done --JorisvS (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! - Thank you *very, very much* for *all* the help - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. ;) --JorisvS (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

Please bear in mind the different nuances of 'Serbo-Croatian'; on one hand as a valid linguistic term pertaining to the fact that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks share one and the same language, and on the other as a defunct official name of that language. In relation to the latter, Serbo-Croatian currently goes under three different official names or languages which are, once more, linguistically registers of that same language unitarily referred to as Serbo-Croatian, or BCS. The first-mentioned nuance certainly trumps the second in a purely scientific linguistic setting (which is the reason we have organized the different language articles the way we have), whereas the opposite is true in terms of politically correct naming as in article leads which are to conform with official statuses and not linguistic terms. The linguistic qualities of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian should be, and are, hashed out in their respective articles which have all been made to converge at Serbo-Croatian. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of 'politically correct naming' sensitive issues. If it were, we wouldn't be having our article entitlted Serbo-Croatian, but instead having it entitled using one of the bulky, cumbersome 'political correct' terms. So, instead of cluttering the lead with something like "Croatian: D, Bosnian: D, Serbian: Д" it is straightforward and much less cluttering (and not to mention far less misleading!) to simply put in "Serbo-Croatian: D/Д". Yes, some people from the Balkans take offense to seeing the term "Serbo-Croatian", just like some people will take offense to seeing depictions of Allah. These are not statements of political endorsement (as these people would think), but simply simple neutral descriptors/illustrations. --JorisvS (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We are using the title Serbo-Croatian because it is the more common (still), and that title is in my opinion nowhere controversial as long as it is limited to being a linguistic term (and thus used in the proper context) and not the official language/label it misleadingly becomes if used to introduce articles on nations, states etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an outlet to express dismay over the absurdities in the ethnic politics of the former Yugoslavia. Omitting the official standards/names from the lead is neither politically correct nor politically accurate, as it would not reflect the circumstances that do indeed exist (think of them what you will, fact remains it is not in our jurisdiction to introduce controversies where it is undue). As part of this, you are approaching the issue solely from a linguistic viewpoint, which is what I attempted to highlight above - in vain. You're not technically wrong, but you are failing to observe the two levels of authority I underline. Namely, that introducing an article without making any mention of potential official languages and/or names is absurd and misleading, and in the context of Serbo-Croatian that would basically equal writing that the official language of Serbia, Croatia or Bosnia is Serbo-Croatian (although not misleading or inaccurate in a linguistic sense, it is in every other). As I previously wrote you in an edit summary, this is not purely a linguistic issue, as three official languages indeed exist. Any linguistic treatise on these three ill-conceived creatures sprung out of man's malice is appropriately confined to the relevant language articles where no one can mistake them for separate languages. I really can't find anything more to say. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do also note that Serbo-Croatian is appropriately used in articles whose primary topic is tied to the former Yugoslavia, such as the article on Josip Broz Tito, because here such a terminology does not run the risk of becoming anachronistic. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"these three ill-conceived creatures sprung out of man's malice is appropriately confined to the relevant language articles where no one can mistake them for separate languages"–pretty much always can one mistake them for separate languages, and especially so if along each other in the way I illustrated above. Such a comment in the first sentence of an article is to inform readers about the term for the subject in the relevant language, in this case that is Serbo-Croatian, the native language of most of Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro. Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian are not languages, but standardized lects. Unless the terms used in these lects are different, it is quite appropriate to simply use the term for the entire language, i.e. Serbo-Croatian. We are not the ones 'introducing controversies' by doing this. Wikipedia does not exist to serve the whimps of politics and emotion. --JorisvS (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"is to inform readers about the term for the subject in the relevant language" - dead on, and we're back on square one. Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are inarguably admitted [official] languages, with for instance different ISO-codes, but at the same time one and the same language. Hence, lo and behold, the two levels of meaning I've been stressing all along. There is informational value in both levels, and both are equally indispensable for understanding various aspects of the subject matter, whether political, ethnic, linguistic and so forth. There is a dual relevance, a dual significance, and a dual meaning, and none can be suppressed, that is, until a better term than "Serbo-Croatian" is presented or the three separate official "languages" cease to exist (we are almost looking at a form of synergy, one wouldn't exit without the other, really). The lead serves to establish the subject, set the tone and guide the reader into the article, needless to say the terminology used cannot be out of context. An option to resolving this dilemma could, occasionally, be to employ Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian which takes into account official distinctions while still underlining their common ground. It's been fun talking to you but I suspect we could go on like this forever, it's probably for the better to put an end to it here (for my part).Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

They can't be both different languages and the same language. Language=group of mutually intelligible lects. Because BCS are all mutually intelligible, they are the same language. Specifically, they are all standardized lects of the same language. The language called Serbo-Croatian exists no matter what we call it (and even if we wouldn't give it any name). --JorisvS (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian is nowadays a linguistic term applied to the language of the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. That language is officially known/sanctioned as Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian. Serbo-Croatian is deprecated as an official descriptor and consequently limited to linguistic utilization or the proper time period. From a politic view, the decision by Croat and Serb linguists to renounce "Serbo-Croatian" is certainly harder to grasp than that of the Bosniaks, who were not represented by such a designation. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ - Talk 12:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in official blabla. But Wikipedia is not in the business of simply following such official blabla. It is simply the term used to indicate the West South Slavic language that is spoken in most of Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro, regardless of the official blabla. Consider the hypothetical situation where some government decides to officially to refer to special and general relativity by different names and to consider them unrelated (instead of special relativity an approximation of general relativity for weak gravitational fields). We wouldn't follow them just because they have decided that, also not on topics related to that government's country. --JorisvS (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your metaphor is basically fallacious because it assumes that the names "Bosnian", "Serbian" or "Croatian" are factually inaccurate (or even artificial or "made up") when in fact each of them predate "Serbo-Croatian" which was coined in the mid-19th century. Serbo-Croatian is a language with four names: S-C, C, B and S - Bosnian, Croatian are Serbian are the official and common names used as of today (with each of their articles having more monthly views than the one for S-C, and not to mention together) while Serbo-Croatian is limited to being a linguistic term. Criticizing the bulkiness of these three original and separate names would in its extremest sense involve criticizing Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia for being three separate states over the past 1000 years, and some outsiders might instinctively (and uncomprehendingly) feel it ought to be one state and one ethnic group gathered under one banner and name. The other faulty assumption is that the Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats would truly think of their languages as separate. Now "Balkanians" might be daft, but they surely do realize that they are speaking one and the same language only separated by longstanding ethnic distinctions. For that reason, the language is today (and indeed historically) known by three names with 'Serbo-Croatian' being a unitary linguistic term which previously and relatively briefly had enjoyed the status of also being an official and widely used name. An accurate metaphor would thus be the following: three old and separate universities exist ("A", "B" and "C") which at some point early in their history simultaneously (but still separately) make a scientific discovery which they name after themselves (A, B and C, respectively). Centuries pass when suddenly a unitary name for the discovery is suggested: "A-B" (with C left out for various reasons we need not to go into the detail of). The new term "A-B" is tentatively used for a couple of decades until the universities are merged into a unified institution ("Yugoslavia") where "A-B" soon becomes an official and widely used name of the discovery. However, due to unbridgeable differences between the ancient universities the unified institution quickly dissolves with the universities returning to being separate. Wanting to emphasize and underline their distinct heritages as separate universities (as opposed to any alleged fundamental difference in the discovery) they declare "A", "B" and "C" as names of the discovery, respectively. The revived names "A", "B" and "C" are thereafter proclaimed official names of the discovery and recognized by accredited institutions ("ISO-codes"). The language is therefore today called either Bosnian (C), Serbian (A) or Croatian (B) and not Serbo-Croatian (A-B), anything else is blatant disinformation. Serbo-Croatian consequently postulates usage in the proper context as to not overshadow the hard facts laid out above. I've said it a number of times now, but I'm currently too preoccupied to engage in polemy of this magnitude. Thank you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ - Talk 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It finally also struck me that you wrote "We wouldn't follow them just because they have decided that", which is wrong because the supreme "We" in this regard (the International Organization for Standardization) does comply with the naming desired by the peoples in question. "We" is not ment to be original research carried out by wikipedians, not to mention that it is plain arrogant to write about the language of a people or state but refuse to refer to it by their collective agreement which is based on historically valid terminology in all three cases. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ - Talk 21:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point of my comparison. It's not about the names (that's why I didn't include any). Sure, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian history and the terms go back far further than the term Serbo-Croatian, but that does not matter. These peoples, with their sizeable history and distinct cultures, somehow do have a common language. This is most commonly termed "Serbo-Croatian", but, in principle, it does not matter which term is used. For all I care we'd use "Croatian", "Serbian", "Bosnian" or something like, say, "Sercrobos" for it, BUT we should be consistent: if we'd use "Croatian" for it, we should do so everywhere, which means the main language of Serbia would be "Croatian". I like your university comparison. There is still one difference with Serbo-Croatian: Serbian and especially Croatian are regularly declared separate languages (cf. universities A and B declaring their discoveries about distinct phenomena). Consider, then, the outside scientific world: They would look down upon the petty politics of these institutions. They would, of course, still deal with this subject and would mostly use some common name. This could well be "A–B" instead of technically proper "A–B–C" (this actually regularly happens in practice). However, even though somewhat different names may be used, never will these be considered distinct phenomena. Regarding Serbo-Croatian, this does happen, so we should be careful not to mislead people into believing that these are different languages, which they are not (all the history, official blabla, and misplaced emotions notwithstanding). --JorisvS (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, all that should be done, however without compromising the relevant understanding that Serbo-Croatian is registered under its ethnic names given the numerous implications. Now we certainly want people to understand that Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian comprise one language, but while also avoiding giving the impression that "Serbo-Croatian" is an active name (it would for instance be awkward having people think Bosniaks call their language "S-C", now wouldn't it?). As for consistency, the approach is pretty clear-cut in topics relating to only one of the groups (such as ethnic articles) where using the ethnic language name is the only sensible measure. In articles concerning two or more of the groups I would choose "B/S/C" or, alternatively, expository notes underlining the virtual equality of the language"s". Historiographic articles are way trickier however, since history topics in the former Yugoslavia (and especially Bosnia) frequently involve three separate and not seldom conflicting historiographies (Bosniak, Serb and Croat) which often use different names or spellings with far-reaching implications on the interpretation of local history. Indicating the three languages is of necessity here due to different scholarships (in this sense, Yugoslavia had, as with everything else, one unified scholarship). Whatever the case, there can never remain any doubt as to by which names the language is called on the ground. Imagine introducing the article on Bosnia and Herzegovina with the name Serbo-Croatian, I would have to read through 7 sections of text before finding out that the language is officially known as Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. Most people do not reach that far. Using B/S/C, or a directly attached expository note stating "Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are standardized registers of one single language commonly termed Serbo-Croatian" is an uncompromising solution. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would using "Serbo-Croatian" have to be awkward for Bosniaks? Compare the Flemish, who speak Dutch, which is called Nederlands in Dutch, also in their own lects, even though they live in Belgium, not the Netherlands. Anyway, such an expository note looks quite appropriate, and better than writing B/C/S. I'm not sure what you mean by the three separate, conflicting historiographies, could you explain this to me? --JorisvS (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What I simply ment is that Bosniaks neither officially nor unofficially refer to their language as S-C, the same goes for most Serbs and Croats. Giving the impression they do is wrong, as it would be to suggest the Dutch to use the name Holland for the entire Netherlands. As for historiography, indicating different languages is more than just a linguistic issue, since it also informs which states/nations/peoples have part or claims in the given subject. Sometimes even purely different languages may for example use the same toponym for a common history-related topic but one wouldn't omit either. In this sense "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian" relates to the different statehoods (contemporary and historical alike) and ultimately the scholarships associated therewith, which are in addition often conflicting. Take for example the title Stephanos (meaning the crowned) which is translated as Stjepan in Bosnian and Croatian historiography, and as Stefan in the Serbian one. Stefan in this regard is used by the Serbian scholarship to claim affiliation to the Serbian Nemanjic dynasty, something which the Bosnian and Croatian scholarship rejects and instead uses the rendering Stjepan. Hence, simply writing Serbo-Croatian: Stefan/Stjepan would do little to facilitate the understanding. Since Yugoslavia was centralized in every possible sense, history was studied rather as a Yugoslav than Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian subject, and "Serbo-Croatian" symbolized that governmental unity and scholastic consensus, which would be anachronistic today. Anyways, these thoughts were just on a side note. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "Null"

Of possible interest re Kepler-69 =>
< ref name="Exo-20130422">"An entry of null means that no information was available for that parameter. In the example of KOI 172, some of the planetary and orbital parameters were calculated in the given reference (Barclay et al) but for the others, we enter a value of null." Exoplanet Archive team (April 22, 2013). "Exoplanet Help Desk". CalTech EMail to Drbogdan. Retrieved April 22, 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)</ref>
hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For me, yes. But I'd prefer something ref'able so we can put this in the article for all readers who see it and wonder what it is supposed to mean. --JorisvS (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "?" edit for the Kepler-69 table seems like a *very* good solution to me at the moment - yes, a WP:RS might be helpful as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey JorisvS :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saraiki language

Dear, Saraiki is a language, it is not a dialect. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links #1 and #2.

• Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989 and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad, and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five TV channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language. 182.186.116.104 (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point? How does that prove anything either way? The same things are true of Serbian, yet Serbian is not a language, but a standardized register of the language that is called Serbo-Croatian. I don't know enough about it to know either way, but POINTy edits like this are unconstructive. --JorisvS (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tidal locking

Hello!

I notice that you are very interested in matters of language. So I was puzzled by a recent change of yours:

You changed

"If the Moon didn't spin at all, then it would alternately show its near and far sides to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right."

to

"If the Moon would not spin at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right."

If your intent were to convert the sentence to use past subjunctive mood to express the counterfactual nature of the set condition, your rewording was not the proper way of doing it. Modern colloquial English appears mostly to have lost the subjunctive, which apparently has, to young ears, a somewhat stilted or archaic sound. I had made a deliberate choice to use indicative form (which to my old ears, sounds somewhat sloppy and imprecise) in deference to what I perceive to be modern usage.

Proper rewordings would include past subjunctive

"If the Moon were not to spin at all, [then] it would alternately show its near and far sides to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right."

or the past continuous

"If the Moon were not spinning at all, [then] it would alternately show its near and far sides to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right."

I have revised the sentence to use the past continuous form of the subjunctive, so perhaps we can both be happy. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Languages of the Balkans

Arbëresh language is not only spoken by Albanian communities in Italy, it is also spoken in Croatia, by the Arbanasi community in Zadar. ATivari_talk 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Says who? There is no mention of such a community on Arbëresh language. --JorisvS (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

yo

Fatum81 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Cookies

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi JorisvS/Archive5, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete my edits

Please do not delete edits from other editors without a reasonable explanation. "ridiculous" is not a reasonable explanation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklaunch (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

They're unconstructive edits with ridiculous edit summaries for every sane person to see, so I and other constructive editors will revert them. --JorisvS (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Documentation: This refers to [17], [18], and [19]. --JorisvS (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Brackets at Bulgarian language

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 All valid instances fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Khuzestani Arabic"

Please present some linguistic literature which describes the Arabic spoken in Khuzestan as a subvariety in its own right. It is treated as Mesopotamian Arabic and is indistinguishable from the Arabic spoken in southern Iraq. [20]

Simply because somebody created a stub named "Khuzestani Arabic" doesn't make it a recognized subvariety. I could create an unreferenced stub named "Najafi Arabic" but it wouldn't make the Arabic spoken in Najaf a subvariety. "Khuzestani Arabic" is only ever spoken of in an Iranian context when discussing Persian in relation to the Arabic of Khuzestan.

I'm not even sure that somebody from Ahvaz presents with any accent to somebody from Basrah, much less a unique dialect. Moreover, the Arabic spoken in Khuzestan Province isn't a homogenous entity to speak of; you have cities like Khorramshahr and Abadan on the opposite side of border with Iraq, and you have cities like Ahvaz and Dezful in the center and north of the province.

If you have literature which says otherwise then please present it as it will be of interest to me. Irānshahr (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you take it to the Khuzestani Arabic talk page and possibly mention the issue at, say, Talk:Varieties of Arabic to get more input. Your points may be valid (I wouldn't know) and should be sorted out there. However, as long as there's an article on it, it should remain in the template. --JorisvS (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bhojpuri language

Bhojpuri language is more similar to Awadhi, Braj and Hindi than Magahi or Maithili. And actually i'm unable to provide any citation due to lack of proper categorisation and consideration by authorities and so there's no published record. But if you want, i can prove my point.. Better let me do. For example, if i've to say, "What is you name?" in bhojpuri, it'd be, "tahaar naam kaa ha?" in awadhi, it is, "tahaar naam kaa hai?" in hindi, it is, "tumhara naam kya hai?" in braj, it is, "tahaar naam kaa hai", and in magadhi, it is "tor naam ki helthi?" in maithili, it'd be, "aahank naam ki chhe?". Now decision is all upon you. And one thing, if there's no evidence on a particular point on net then the view of native speaker can be, should be and must be accepted. Thanks. Mywikieditbh (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is true, then why is it so hard for you people to find a reliable source to support your claim, as required by Wikipedia's policy? Wikipedians are not reliable sources, so neither are you. And don't refer to the authorities, because a) they are not a reliable source for classification issues anyway, b) scientific sources (i.e. the only ones that are reliable with respect to classification) do not conform to authorities, and c) they group it under Hindi in the censes. --JorisvS (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Croatian

You've already been informed of WP:ARBMAC, so you should know that this is unacceptable - the first part of the diff may be fine, but the scare quotes are plain old tendentious in that context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They were already used for the first mention of "Croatian". The ones I added were for the same purpose. --JorisvS (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

First instance is the translation of the word, so it's not the same. But maybe Joy needs to AGF. — Lfdder (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, maybe not quite the same, but still similar. There are a bunch of ways people could use "Croatian language", none of which are akin to how people could use, say, "Slovene language" or "Spanish language" (well, many Croatians would like that it could, but reality is at odds with this wish). I added them to indicate this kind of usage, which mirrors hrvatski. If you know a better way to signal this, then please. --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added the description we use in the lede in Croatian language in parentheses. — Lfdder (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly the first time I've seen JorisvS use Serbo-Croatian as opposed to Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian, and I have indeed assumed good faith, both then and now. Yet, the later comment is indicative that my assessment of inappropriate negative bias in the scare quores is correct. The article used the term "Croatian language" in a way that was perfectly legitimate and completely orthogonal to whatever one may think about its elevation beyond the notion of a standard language. Using scare quotes in that context was an entirely unnecessary digression that amounted to a trivial piece of flamebait in the context of the unending drama surrounding this topic. The standard of behavior in this topic area is supposed to be higher than that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said above, legitimate uses not withstanding, there is a distinction in meaning. We should not withhold that from our readers. Lfdder's edit makes this clearer and so is better. Nevertheless, it could be improved further, because an ethnicity-based paraphyletic grouping of Serbo-Croatian dialects is also called "Croatian". Also note that using "Serbo-Croatian" instead of the euphemistic "Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian" to refer to the language is perfectly good, precise English usage. --JorisvS (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think they meant only one of Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian, not they 'euphemistic' BCS for Serbo-Croatian. — Lfdder (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, then I'd like to add that it is misleading to use only one of them in a sentence where it remains as true when using 'Serbo-Croatian' instead (like the one the page in question had before my first edit). It singles out one part of a language (standard language or paraphyletic grouping) where such singling out is not warranted. --JorisvS (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you speak Arabic?

Hello,

I frequently get people who are requesting help, but have sources in various languages, and so I have to direct them to native speakers of the language when the Machine Translations are not good enough. So do you speak arabic? If so, can I bring some Arabic sources to you ever now and then for help with translation?

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s. I suggested the user below to contact you. I hope you don't mind. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Arabic. What makes you think I would? --JorisvS (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your name showed up in the Users who have the Ar-4 userboxes under their subpages. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You should check the page before rushing to the talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And you should not have all the babel userboxes on your sub-page. Editors frequently use those categories to find other editors who speak the language under question. I request you remove those unnecessary userboxes, or subst them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you rush to someone's talk page before even looking at the page?? --JorisvS (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was an honest enough assumption/mistake that any editor who has that userbox on a sub-page named userboxes (or boxes) would be speaking the language. Thats the standard all Wikipedia editors I've encountered use (Either the User page or a subpage named userbox). I request you remove the entire list or subst them to not cause any further confusion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't need that page in those categories (and prefer it not to be), but if I subst the templates, then the page won't be updated when a template is. Is there another way to not have these categorize my page? I tried this, but that doesn't seem to work. --JorisvS (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked another user who might know. Also, many of the templates I see are broken anyways. Substing might be a way to make sure more of them dont get broken. I'm still exploring the no-category option though.. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Try nocat=true than nocat=1 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Okay, so I went through and applied it for you and "most" of the categories have gone away... The rest of them will need the templates checked to make sure there is a line that reads:

|nocat = {{{nocat|<noinclude>true</noinclude>}}}

Let me know if you need help with that and I'll see what I can do. Technical 13 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --JorisvS (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for help on an article

Hi, i wrote an article with 2 references in arabic that was thought to be an advert. Want you to check it and see if you can approve it coz this is an informative article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rashwe.com I understood from wikipedia help that issue is that this refernce is thought to be an advert. reference 3 and 6 is in question thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabsfeir (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

a) I don't speak Arabic. b) Doesn't really seem to be my area of interest here on WP. --JorisvS (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Serbian/Croatian

On this Wikipedia hard to offend some people and their national languages​​, ignoring the facts and international documents. The fact that the Serbian and Croatian two different standard languages, here it does not matter how big the difference is, it deals with linguistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.18.219 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure (Standard) Serbian and and (Standard) Croatian and two different/distinct standard languages. They are, however, not different enough from each other to make them part of distinct languages altogether. --JorisvS (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong

My name is Mark Mreza, I'm a linguist, I'll explain why you're wrong:

1. Serbo-Croatian is not language, it's dialect system. It dialect system consisting of four languages: Serbian language, Croatian language, Bosnian language and Montenegrin language. Dialectal system and language are not the same concepts. These are the different languages ​​that were closer together politically, after disintegration of Yugoslavia they are again politically distancing.

The younger generation have significant communication problems, these languages ​​are as different as the Scandinavian languages​​, Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian.

1. English language has spread from the UK to the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and there has developed in different variants.

Contact: Institute of Language and Linguistics http://ihjj.hr/kontakt/ --95.168.98.98 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're a linguist, you should know the following: Most, if not all, languages are collections mutually intelligible dialects or "dialect systems". The four 'languages' you give are all based on subdialect of a collection of speech varieties or "dialect" that is called Shtokavian. Collections of speech varieties (dialects) that are less closely related to those are called Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Torlakian. Together these four dialects are called "Serbo-Croatian". You should also be familiar with the typical rate languages change and how quickly they could change: two decades is not enough to create separate languages. You should also understand that languages are not political things and hence politics are irrelevant.

Moreover, you should be familiar with the bunch of words that are different in (some of) these standardized speeches called "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian", and "Montenegrin", the myriad of words that are identical in all of them. You should also be familiar with their near-identical grammars and that the differences that do exist are marginal. --JorisvS (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Crosswind kite power

Thank you for the edit in the article Crosswind kite power. Many editors are building the young article. Any help is good. Thanks. On the matter of "fly crosswind" versus "fly in crosswind" ... please consider. The systems do not fly "in" crosswind, but rather "fly crosswind". Expanding, the systems have wings that are either passively or actively controlled to fly wings not in the ambient downwind direction, but rather controlled actively or passively to fly in a manner that ends up that the motion of the wing tracks across the ambient wind line to form a new "apparent wind" experience just at the wing itself; the new apparent wind is greater than the ambient wind. So, would you mind please reverting your edit and leave "fly crosswind" ... thanks. I will be noticing your change or not in the history. Thanks. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC) I was in the text and changed it without the "in" already, but aim still to be polite with you. What say you? Thanks. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, "fly" is an intransitive verb and the only transitive-like use I can find is in something like 'fly an airplane'. The intended difference in meaning is interesting, but is not clear from saying 'fly crosswind' instead of 'fly in crosswind'. I'm wondering about the physical mechanism behind the difference you describe, which would be an important addition to the article. --JorisvS (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Something to think about in your grammar offering here, Joris. "How do we fly; do we "fly wings crosswindingly" or do we "fly crosswind" ... "fly crosswindingly" ? We do fly wings so the result is that the apparent wind experienced at the wing is cross to the ambient wind. Joris, would it then be more correct: "fly crosswindingly" which adverb seems rare? Thanks for your moment. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Or maybe: "fly the wing to achieve crosswind advantages"  ? 68.123.233.218 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The only adverbial form of "crosswind" I can think of is "in crosswind". "Crosswindingly" is not correct English. When there is a wing in crosswind in steady-state, then the wing must experience an effective force perpendicular to the crosswind, otherwise it would not be steady-state, but change its flight direction. So, why would "fly in crosswind" be less accurate (it does not say "experience crosswind", after all)? --JorisvS (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So, Joris, does a comma come after "i.e." or not? My reference for having the comma is http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_comma_after_ie_in_a_sentence If I noticed your edit, you wanted the comma off. Is that a Wikipedia style preference? Thanks. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC) And more strongly: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ie-eg-oh-my.aspx where she finds "five of six" style guides requiring the comma after the "i.e." use. She directs not to italicize, as the Latin abbreviation has come to be common English. The WP:MOS ... I could not find the comma in question yet. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Martian Gullies

An article that you have been involved in editing, Martian Gullies , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 4015 Wilson–Harrington 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:

• an [[Apollo asteroid]] (with the designation ''4015 Wilson–Harrington'') and a periodic [[comet]] (then known as ''Comet Wilson–Harrington'' or ''107P/Wilson–Harrington''. It was initially

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mother ship

'SpaceShipOne connected to its mother ship White Knight' <-That is not ok. The edit that I made to the page was the following: 'SpaceShipOne connected to its companion ship White Knight.' User JorisvS reverted that to the bad original, and yeah that's about all to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialPiggy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mother ship is a perfectly normal term for that. --JorisvS (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albedo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LEED (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) 11:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not fixed yet. That was, unfortunately, intentional. If anyone can disambiguate it, that would be great. I have already tagged it for that purpose. --JorisvS (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Someone has fixed it. --JorisvS (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens

Please stop moving pages and rendering them with improper hyphenation. Information technology consulting, for instance, is not hyphenated "information-technology consulting" because it refers to a branch of consulting having to do with the field of information technology. —Eustress ^talk 02:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your description is accurate: It is (information technology) consulting, not information (technology consulting). Technically, terms that should be parsed in the former way should be hyphenated to indicate that it should not be parsed in the latter way. --JorisvS (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian dialects

Part of them are spoken on Bulgarian territory, i.e. they are also recognized by neutral linguists as Bulgarian dialects. Regards.Jingiby (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is about dialects of Macedonian, not about dialects of Bulgarian. If they are Bulgarian dialects, they should not be covered by that article, if they are not (but instead Macedonian, given the isoglosses, not the political borders), then the article should cover them. In both cases, the category Category:Dialects of the Bulgarian language is inappropriate, because the article is simply not about dialects of Bulgarian. --JorisvS (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of them are both: Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects. There is no linguistic border between the eastern Macedonian dialects and southwestern Bulgarian-including those in Greece, i.e. part of them are transitional and the eastern most simply Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, the article title constrains the topic so as to exclude that category. They are also covered at Bulgarian dialects, where that category is appropriate and Category:Dialects of the Macedonian language is inappropriate, given the article titles. --JorisvS (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK! Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic script

I will be returning to look at your revisions in the morning as it is late in the evening here in Australia and I simply don't have the time or the energy to dispute the issues at the moment. Nor do I wish to provoke an edit war which appears to be what you are pushing for. At a glance, your attempts to 'improve' the language are as illiterate as that which you are improving on (although 'type' was correct: I didn't look at the full context immediately). You need to be aware of punctuation as you keep omitting comas. Further to that, don't change 'since' to 'because' as the first word of a new paragraph. Sentences should not be started with a conjunction, etc. If you need to retain the form of the sentence, use 'as'. It is far less obtrusive. More in the morning.

Is English your native language? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an edit war (I never am), but when my edits are reverted for the wrong reasons, I tend to revert the revert. "Since" at the start of a sentence is just as much a conjunction as "because". Because with this meaning "because" and "since" are equivalent and "since" has other meanings (so does "as"), whereas "because" does not, "because" is preferable. The story of "while" vs. "whereas" or "although" is similar. I haven't omitted any commas: I haven't removed nor added any. As for "which" vs. "that", "which" is correct in those instances, but so is "that". Because "that" makes it easier to notice that these are restrictive clauses, "that" is preferable. To sum up: None are wrong, but there are better alternatives available. --JorisvS (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit wars, either. Neither do I see that it is an issue to be relegated to our personal pages. My main concern is less for the grammar than the integrity of the article itself. Please go to the Cyrillic script talk page to continue discussing the issues that ARE relevant. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kepler-37 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:

• 494..452B }}</ref> It has a temperature similar to that of the Sun, but a bit cooler at 5,417 [[Kelvin|K]. It has about half the [[metallicity]] of our Sun. With an age of roughly 6 billion
• to rule out other astronomical phenomenon mimicking planetary transit with probabilities of error <0.05% (3σ) for each potential planet. Additionally, simulation demonstrated that the proposed

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laminal consonant 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:

• called "[[retroflex]]" but are properly [[alveolar consonant|alveolar]] or [[postalveolar]]). [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] has a three-way distinction between laminal dental, apical

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Epstein-Barr virus pages

Hello there. Can you please help me fix the nomenclature in the Epstein-Barr virus pages that you edited? For Epstein-Barr virus the accepted nomenclature is to use a hyphen not a dash between Epstein and Barr."Epstein-Barr Virus" (PDF). Retrieved 12 November 2013. Likewise, the titles for the EBV non-coding RNA pages you changed were originally taken from the nomenclature in published literature and the only dashes should be in "Epstein-Barr" and nowhere else: For example, Epstein-Barr virus stable intronic sequence RNAs is taken from Ref. 4 in that page (I'm the co-discoverer, along with Joan Steitz, of these RNAs). Even if there should be dashes in the RNA's name (grammatically speaking) I think it's best to leave them out to remain in line with the published scientific literature. I've been trying to change the titles back by moving the pages, but I think I ended up duplicating the ebv-sisRNA page. I'd appreciate your help fixing this. Thank you! Walternmoss (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a matter of COMMONNAME, but of proper punctuation (which need not follow the publications, because they are regularly sloppy in this regard). The Epstein–Barr virus is named after two different people, and should therefore be dashes, not hyphenated. A distinction between an endash and a hyphen is not always made in publications. The hyphens I added are for proper parsing of the meaning: e.g. a large-cell carcinoma is a carcinoma consisting of large cells (because the hyphen indicates that "large" refers to "cell"), whereas "large cell carcinoma" would be a cell carcinoma (whatever that would be) that is large. In specialist literature hyphens in such specialist terms are regularly omitted because specialists are expected to be familiar with them, and hence expected to be able to easily recognize them regardless of a hyphen. However, Wikipedia is a general-audience encyclopedia, where readers cannot be expected to be familiar with the terms, nor be expected to simply parse the terms correctly (for all they know a cell carcinoma could be something that exists). Therefore, to aid our readers in understanding, we should add hyphens wherever they are appropriate. --JorisvS (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. However, I respectfully disagree with using the dash in EBV. Rather than aiding readers it can only cause confusion. It's not just a few sloppy publications: it is every published work on Epstein-Barr virus that I've ever seen or been able to find, including the definitive source on virus nomenclature: The International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) – "ICTV Taxonomy History for Human herpesvirus 4". Retrieved 13 November 2013. The only place I've ever found a dash is in the main wikipedia entry for Epstein-Barr virus. Even if the grammatical rules say it's wrong, the hyphen is in-line with the accepted nomenclature and found in (so far as I know) every scientific publication. Don't you think it might be confusing to have the wikipedia page for Epstein-Barr using nomenclature that contradicts the scientific literature? Imagine some poor undergraduate handing in a report about "Epstein—Barr virus", immediately their professor will be annoyed and will have the red pen out to change this. In my understanding, encyclopedias should report information on a subject, not attempt to "repair" or introduce new scholarship. The dash/hyphen battle might be an interesting subject at one of the ICTV meetings, but is not really appropriate on wikipedia. Walternmoss (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying the publications are sloppy, only their punctuation in this respect. I'll refer you to Wikipedia policy: WP:ENDASH, point 2, specificially the second part. This is not a matter of following the scientific nomenclature, only of punctuation: The name is the same, but the punctuation differs. Note also that it must be an endash (–, as in Epstein–Barr), not an emdash (—, Epstein—Barr). --JorisvS (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I still think that adding the dash is confusing. Don't you think it will be strange/confusing to have almost every scientific paper, text book, etc. using a hyphen and only wikipedia using the endash? It's not even uniformly used in wikipedia: other grammarians have added endashes randomly into EBV-related wikipages...it's a mess (not only for punctuation). I've put in a "requested move" for name changes to the pages on Category:Epstein–Barr virus: to make the punctuation uniform and to name the proteins uniformly. Let's see what "they" say. Another idea would be to query the experts involved in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and have them weigh in on this. Would this be helpful? Thank you. Walternmoss (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What would be confusing? If elsewhere improper punctuation is used, that should be simply fixed, obviously. --JorisvS (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not merely an "academic" dispute. Practically speaking hyphens, endashes, and emdashes might cause problems for search algorithms or for citation/indexing purposes...this seems an important consideration. It is best to have a uniform nomenclature/punctuation for EBV wikipedia articles and one that adheres to that used in the scientific community. Walternmoss (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is best to have a uniform nomenclature and punctuation. I think it is even better if it is as uniform as possible Wikipedia-wide, though. Therefore, the best thing to do is to have these follow the MoS, and therefore use the endash. As for the searching stuff. This is handled on Wikipedia, as long as there are redirects from the titles with a hyphen to the title with the endash. Google Scholar reads them as equivalent (in fact, as equivalent to a space), so also no problems there if people decide to copy the article title and input it in Google Scholar. I don't of other search engines or indexes, but I have a hard time imagining how using an endash on Wikipedia could seriously hamper those. --JorisvS (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they'd be handled either, hopefully it would not cause a problem. I did some sleuthing the earliest published instance of "EBV" which (to the best of my knowledge) occurred in 1968 (Henle, et. al, 1968). I was hoping for some hint on this punctuation controversy. They call it "EB virus (EBV)" without a hyphen, or even spelling out the names...so no help here! I thought this was sort of funny.

I don't know if you're following the Requested Move discussion on the EBV main page, but there's been a bit of a breakthrough: in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:ENDASH) it states, "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." They give several examples of single entities named after two people being joined with a hyphen. As Epstein-Barr virus is the name of this entity, I think the style guide suggests that the hyphen be used, rather than a dash.Walternmoss (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's really just unclear formulation in our MoS, I'm afraid (otherwise it contradicts itself). As has already been said on Talk:Epstein–Barr virus, it only refers to instances where the entity is no longer seen as specifically named after the two components it was originally named after. --JorisvS (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

After a lot of ranting I've altered my position on the en dash in EBV. I apologize if I was abrasive and for taking up such a huge space on your Talk page. Thanks. This has been really informative to me: I've learned a lot about grammar/punctuation, Wikipedia editing, and the history of EBV! I agree with you on using en dashes uniformly to be consistent with Wikipedia style. I've proposed altering the name changes. Some revised names now use hyphenation (not in the EBV part), but I've done my best to take names from publications with usage that correspond to the official gene names (abbreviations/acronyms indexed in the NCBI). I'm also proposing to add redirects from the acronyms (used in the official gene names) to the main articles (with the names spelled out). I hope these revisions can make everyone happy. Sorry again. Walternmoss (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, really, because you were willing to listen to counterarguments and Wikipedia will be better off. --JorisvS (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Useful study

Hi JorisvS, I posted the following at Ivan Štambuk's page, but I think that you, Taivo and kwami 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 https://linguistics.stonybrook.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/u5/publications/JSLBCS2.pdf" ---

LAuburger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! Very useful. --JorisvS (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Northern Basque Country

Hi JorisvS, Northern Basque Country is not a usual term for Iparralde. There is a Basque country in Spain (Hegoalde). Northern Basque Country does not appear in Wikipedia either, it is French Basque Country. Calling the 3 provinces Northern Basque Country is confusing to the vast majority of non-basque people, therefore I suggest it be replaced by basque provinces in france (4 words) rather than Northern Basque Country (3 words). Exurbis67 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The article French Basque Country says "The French Basque Country or Northern Basque Country ...", so, no, it is not confusing. In fact, the Basque article itself is located at "Ipar Euskal Herria", which is "Northern Basque Country" when translated. I do not object to rewording it to say "French Basque Country", though. --JorisvS (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think French Basque Country is clearer for the vast majority of the planet, so I would go with that.

Exurbis67 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

2000 Herschel

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2000 Herschel, 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. Carbon6 ^talk 02:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It was without a source and I could not verify it, and it looked really weird (the significant figures were way off). I could have said that in the edit summary, but it was a quick shot for the reasons I've mentioned. Note that your readdition with the 'source' for your own calculation has been reverted for being OR and for being way off. -JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Officially banal language question

Hi! Is it really perceived non-Anglophone writing "the officially first"? Silly question, but I gotta know. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. It would be "officially the first". But that does not matter here; I reverted it because it is a matter of logic anyway: It is irrelevant if according to some official source one dictionary would be the first (it can then be simply the first or not the first; then "official" can be left out entirely). It can be the first dictionary that has been officially published (an "official dictionary"). In the latter situation, it is best to simply say "the first official dictionary". --JorisvS (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I'm liking your fine-tuned taste for details! Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tsakonian *r

Noticed your edit to Tsakonian. I always wondered about the r–z correspondence in Latin. You think it might have been s.t. like this? — kwami (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Could be, it sounds plausible, but I wouldn't really know. --JorisvS (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Several scholars suspect that Latin s was really retracted, like in several dialects of Spanish, Greek and some other European languages. In this case, a plausible intermediate stage between [z] and [r] may also have been [ɹ], which then merged with /r/. The same stage could have been found in Old Norse, for example. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request

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

Upsilon Andromedae

You might want to check your last edit to Upsilon Andromedae; it looks like you removed more than you might have intended. A lot of categories which look like they were still applicable, and no comment indicating they were obsolete. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply moved them to its category page. --JorisvS (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the pattern used in other stars - categories like Bayer objects, Flamsteed Objects, ... are present in the star article itself. The change doesn't seem obvious to me - Is there a new policy to move these categories? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It just seemed to make sense to me to have them at the system's category, because these numbers were assigned to the stars long ago and would apply as much to the entire system as to just the star. Do you think it makes more sense to have them at the star's article? --JorisvS (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The category is likely only to be found by someone looking for pointers to the components, the star article itself is where I'd expect any references to catalogues to appear. It would avoid the disconnect in the draper/flamsteed/etc references where categories and articles appear in different lists. Indeed, I'm not sure a category of upsilon andromedae makes much sense, it seems more likely that an subsection "Upsilon Andromedae components" would make more sense for that particular collection of references. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You could just move them back. I don't particularly care where they are. I don't understand what you mean about the category itself. To me it makes as much sense as the category Solar System. --JorisvS (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Kabardian language

Your recent editing history 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. Estlandia (woof!) 10:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. You're replacing a referenced figure with an unreferenced one, and now you're "warning" me for reverting you? --JorisvS (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, let's compare notes...

Hello,

I am kinda new to making edit in wikipedia. I am interesting Astronomy... But, I trying to cleanup the section about asteroids in the main, Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs. 17,502 articles/stubs. They need to be put somewhere else??

Sincerely, Pliming..

P.S. Trying to be helpful.... Pliming (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem being new. Stubs are very short articles. This article is longer than a stub. If those articles are indeed very short (i.e. stubs), then they should be tagged as such. I doubt that we can or should be more specific than a general stub category of articles about asteroids in the asteroid belt. However, any stub should preferably be expanded. If you want to clean up articles about Solar System objects, you may want to look at this clean-up edit of mine. Although it is really short now, it is still better than it was. For example, it is an asteroid, no matter whether it would be officially catalogued as such; moreover, all asteroids are minor planets, but not all minor planets are asteroid (e.g. Pluto is a minor planet (and dwarf planet), but not an asteroid). Also, it is best to refer to the asteroid belt as such, and not "main belt" (and certainly not with caps like "Main Belt" or so), because it is the only belt of asteroids in the Solar System. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. --JorisvS (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, Ok…. You, are right. We currently have only one asteroid belt. But we also have the Kuiper belt. Has for an asteroid being classified also a minor planet. That does not make sense. It should be one or the other. Not both. I think the, International Astronomical Union, messed us up, when they reclassified Pluto as a dwarf planet. And, they have not got around to dealing with the asteroids. That is not your fault. Pliming (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the article, List of minor planets. Because it does a good job of listing the minor planets/asteroids. Pliming (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all minor planets being asteroids makes perfect sense: just like that all chihuahuas are dogs, but not all dogs are chihuahuas. As for Pluto being a dwarf planet: Check out the table here, and note the enormous gap between the planets and the dwarf planets, as expressed in two distinct, but related parameters: a body's orbital cleanliness μ and a body's scattering ability Λ. Nature has provided a very clear distinction between these two populations. --JorisvS (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. But what about a dwarf planet, also being classified as a minor planet. People can and do get confused by these terms. I am no expert by any means. I am just interested in the subject. What do you think about it.Pliming (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All dwarf planets are also minor planets (note that all have minor-planet numbers). A minor planet is everything that is not a star, planet, satellite, or comet (check out to which populations minor planets can belong at that page; the second sentence). In turn, all minor planets and comets are small Solar System objects. --JorisvS (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, ah. How long or short of a article would you, consider a stub?? Why are some articles stubs, and not others. What's its purpose?

As for what is or not a minor planet. I will go by the articles, you mentioned, When, when I catalogue these objects. Thank you. Pliming (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A paragraph with at most a few references. See also WP:Stub and User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs--JorisvS (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, To let you know, I messed up the article on, 22_Kalliope, badly. Sorry. I tried to delete a dead link. I am trying to help, but not doing a good job, yet??Pliming (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I restored the infobox. I'll have a look at the dead link later. --JorisvS (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you Pliming (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note on models for Fomalhaut b

I don't understand what you think is unclear about the models that Galicher et al. in the "Recovery/independent confirmation with Hubble and further controversy" section. The text is almost verbatim from the paper abstract and seems perfectly clear to me. They consider two models for Fomalhaut b's emission, both involving dust, not thermal emission from a planet atmosphere. In one case, the dust is 'circumplanetary', gravitationally bound to an unseen, lower-mass planet in a disk-like geometry. In the second case, they try to explain "Fomalhaut b" as a collision between two 50km-sized Kuiper belt objects (in other words Fomalhaut b is 'just a dust cloud'). They compute the collision frequency of two 50 km exo-KBOs given the optical depth of Fomalhaut's debris ring and the orbital timescale, arguing that such collisions happen within the belt every few centuries. 2632cgn (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have misplaced the tag when I restored it after you replaced with a reference. It was meant for the "not, strictly speaking, a directly imaged planet" part. Sorry. --JorisvS (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. But I guess I don't understand the clarification needed there either. By "not, strictly speaking, a directly imaged planet" the paper means that we are not seeing thermal emission from a planet (i.e. we are not seeing photons from the atmosphere of a planet). This is unlike the case for HR 8799 bcde, beta Pictoris b, ROXs 42Bb and the like. Rather, we are seeing dust surrounding an unseen planet. Does that make sense to you? 2632cgn (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, but what about the images under the gallery? They show a brighter, moving spot that would be b. --JorisvS (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

2013

		The Space Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For contributions to various projects and related articles. Fotaun (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --JorisvS (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:NN Serpentis

Category:NN Serpentis, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your useful edits to the Italian Wikiproject pages. Speling12345 (talk) 5:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Voiceless palatal fricative

Hi! I am the person behind the audio (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:13-12-22_voiceless_palatal_fricative.ogg) that you have recently deleted from the voiceless palatal fricative page. I've been trying to get to the right sound of this particular phoneme for quite some time, and I tried pronouncing it approximating down from the voiceless palatal stop, which - unlike the fricative - does occur in my first language (that is, Slovak). Could you please help me identify the sound that I actually made while going for the palatal fricative? It would be greatly appreciated, as I am currently trying to - so to speak - get my IPA sounds right. Thank you and have a nice day! :)) Edralis 10:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A palatalized laminal voiceless alveolar fricative. According to voiceless palatal stop, the voiceless palatal plosive of Slovak is actually alveolar, which likely means that it would be precisely a palatalized laminal voiceless alveolar plosive, and that you kept the place of articulation exactly the same. The voiceless palatal fricative is basically a fronted voiceless velar fricative and sounds most like it, but a bit mixed with that of the voiceless postalveolar fricative. It exists in some English pronunciations of "hue", as in the sound file at wikt:hue. --JorisvS (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is indeed a very helpful explanation. Thank you for your time and patience! :) Edralis 15:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --JorisvS (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern Chakavian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (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, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High German languages 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:

• dialects|High German dialects]]''' ({{lang-de|Hochdeutsche Dialekte}}) comprise the [[variety (linguistics|varieties]] of [[German language|German]] spoken south of the [[Benrath line|Benrath]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chechen language 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:

• from Turkic (like "kuzga", "shish"), belonging to the universal Caucasian stratum of borrowings) and most recently Russian (modern terms, like computer – "kamputar", television – "telvideni",
• prefers the use of Cyrillic, whereas the [[Chechen Republic of Ichkeria|separatists']] prefer Latin).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, and more. --JorisvS (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Croatian language 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:

• language|Montenegrin]]. All other [[Serbo-Croatian dialects]] are also spoken by ethnic Croats ([[Chakavian dialect|Chakavian]], [[Kajkavian dialect|Kajkavian]], and [[Torlakian dialect|Torlakian]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Kabardian language

Please tell me, what is wrong now? I didn't use any colors - all I did was make the table look more neet. What do you have against me!? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not have anything against you. It simply does not improve the table. The table at that article has been in the standard layout used all over phonology sections in Wikipedia. Using colors or not is not the problem, though. The problem is arbitrarily changing the layout of a standardized table. We were discussing any possible improvements at Talk:Adyghe language, and then you decided to change the table at another article instead of discussing. You should be discussing it. --JorisvS (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the Manual of Style

Hello there! Regarding your edit on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, could you please point me into the place on MOS' talk page where you've discussed those changes, and reached a required consensus? As we know, all non-trivial changes to the MOS are required to be discussed first. Also, the language you've used could be improved; for example, numbers were used instead of spelling them out. Please advise. — Dsimic (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, a piece of constructive criticism! The place is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphens instead of endashes. It clearly states the problem to be fixed in the beginning of the discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a link to the thread on MOS' talk page, and please let me spend some time digesting this quite lengthy discussion. — Dsimic (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, got through it. :) Well, you did it all right, by writing a new wording proposal and putting it up for voting; though, the issue is there was no clear consensus about that proposal. I'd suggest you split the new wording proposal into another (sub)section on the MOS talk page, in order to attract more comments through voting. I know it's a painful process, but changing the MOS is like changing the constitution of a state. :) Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. Will do. :) --JorisvS (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility

Hi JorisvS! One quick point. When we say mutual intelligibility between two languages (suppose A and B), we essentially mean that both the languages (A and B) are understood by speakers of both the languages. If speaker of language A does not understand language B, it is referred to as asymmetric intelligibility and NOT mutual intelligibility. And since the table says about mutual intelligibility, hence it should be mentioning the languages relation only once. Shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Sidz (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've got a point there. There is a problem with cleaning up the list, though: There are combinations such as Danish–Swedish–Norwegian, where there are varying degrees of intelligibility. How could we remove the duplicates from the list and at the same time still clearly indicate these? --JorisvS (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Contractions

I see you often edit contractions out of articles, as if it's an end in itself, but that often leaves the article sounding stilted and artificial. An example is your latest edit at 1 Ceres. I don't think anyone would ever say it that way, so when I read it, the two words "did not" sound like the point of the sentence rather than just the grammar for the point. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTRACTIONS says about contractions that they should almost all of the time be avoided, because they are too informal for an encyclopedia. That's how I assessed that part. It also suggests rephrasing the whole sentence as a possible solution. --JorisvS (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for advice on spotlight effect

I have been working with my history of psychology classes to improve Wikipedia psychology content. Back in May you gave some good advice on this article. I missed it until recently, because I had not checked back on my talk page. (I didn't realize how important this is until recently.) I will be sure to pass it along to my present class. I hope to find some students who will fix the article so it meets Wikipedia standards. James Council (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be great! --JorisvS (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

re edit to Botlikh language

When I last looked at the Botlikh language page, the info box was full of nonsense and the references section had an error. The previous version of the page was working so I undid your edit. Perhaps the some template was temporarily broken. —Coroboy (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The only thing your edit did was change the stub tag back to a more generic one[22], so it didn't affect the infobox, nor any references. Nor was it my edit that you undid. The template template:NEC-lang-stub hasn't been edited since its creation almost a month ago. --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

After your comment I checked the history of that template too. I saw that it hadn't changed. That's why I said "some template was temporarily broken" - I'm not going to try chasing down all the templates, sub-templates, etc. that might have been called from Botlikh page to see if something was being changed somewhere at that time. I just saw a badly messed up page, tried the previous version which was ok and did an undo. What else do you suggest I could have done? —Coroboy (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I would do is check if I can fix the problem by looking at the template used in the article, instead of hiding the problem. I think you would have found that the problem was unrelated to that template in this case. --JorisvS (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And then what? I don't have the expertise to go mucking around inside of templates. I can fix an obvious mess by reverting to a version which works. Next time I see a mess, I'll leave it for you experts to fix. Nuff. —Coroboy (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, of course. You might have seen that the problem had gone away, you might still have undone that edit with a better-informed edit summary. I don't know, it would have depended on what you would have seen. I am no template expert either, I just try to do what I can, just like you. I only take a slightly different approach to it. --JorisvS (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

astro boxes

Since you've been cleaning up the formatting in the planet/asteroid info boxes, I've noticed that quite a few have ⟨"⟩ rather than a proper ⟨″⟩ under the param 'Angular diameter'. I've fixed the ones I've noticed, but haven't gone looking for them. Just in case you're looking for things to do :) — kwami (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I'll keep an eye out for those, although I do ave more than enough things to do. --JorisvS (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Croatian language

I've left a message on the Talk:Croatian language. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on your recent edit. Shokatz (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Spectral type

Hi, I see you've changed B-dash-V to B-minus-V. Do we have an article on what these mean? Should probably link to it from the box. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

These are used indicated an object's color. If I have understood them correctly, they mean something like blue band minus green (visual) band. Although, I don't quite understand why then red Sedna has a positive V−R=0.78 (maybe the absolute value?), but I haven't been able to make sense of these in any other way. --JorisvS (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Singer-Brewster

I think it's kind of weird what you did with 105P/Singer-Brewster, and asking for trouble. It seems to me that we need in situations like this to more clearly distinguish IAU-formatted names, like "105P/Singer Brewster" from more normal names as styled for WP audience, as "Comet Singer-Brewster". And the discussion of en dash versus hyphen in the article is probably not sourceable to a reliable source, so should be left out. Dicklyon (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do see quite a few books with "105P/Singer-Brewster". Not sure how to interpret the intent there. Dicklyon (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they don't blindly follow the weird IAU interpunction? That said, it seems like a sensible idea to move the article to Comet Singer-Brewster; after all, what is the point in having the weird (for the layman) "105P/" in the name if it's so easy to avoid? The IAU hyphen vs. endash stuff is something people will likely wonder about when they notice it the difference. Maybe we should move it to the talk page instead? --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost every other comet uses a hyphen errr horizontal thingie, instead of a space.

For example 1655 Comas Sola is named after Comas Solà, also known as "Comas i Solà" ("i" is "and" in Catalan language). But a small number of sources still manages to put a hyphen on his comet name and on his surname. Does it mean that it really has a hyphen? Of course not!

About removing the RS from the article.... I don't even know what to say at that. Really, please, don't do that again.

Also, unmoved. Try a WP:RM if you feel really lucky. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Then try being consistent in following the weird IAU interpunction. This is not currently the case. But it's good that you've managed to call it 'horizontal thingie', because that's all the IAU can make of it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Epsilon Indi. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really, just an anon who is adamant on restoring his own version (which I have merely (re)copyedited) every few days and does not give any reason for reverting my copyediting. --JorisvS (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the anon should certainly provide a reason, and I've warned them for edit warring too. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is still edit warring, and it would be beneficial to all for you to take it to the talk page. BTW, I don't have a strong opinion on the issue. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently not much for me to discuss, though I suppose the next time such a thing happens I could take it to the other user's talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

s/(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)/Serbo-Croatian/g

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

But....that would substitute Serbo-Serbo-Croatian for Serbo-Croatian. ;/ — Lfdder (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

re Once in HE

Re your comment in List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, see this article on Psyche. Tbayboy (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

secondaire

Hello, this pronunciation is [sœɡõdæːχ] or [sœɡõdɐɛ̯χ] ? Fort123 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. Fort123 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

At first inspection it's definitely more like the former, though not quite. The "front vowels" sound more mid than front to me, so it sounds more like [sɞɡõdɜːχ] to me. The last vowel also doesn't sound quite "stable", but that may be due to the tongue having to start to make a uvular. --JorisvS (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Although we don't always agree on everything related to astronomical objects, I just want to say that I do appreciate the work you do to keep their articles in good shape. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --JorisvS (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits on T cell

You're welcome! I appreciate your having extended the kind gesture in thanking me. NewEnglandDr (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

tempête

This pronunciation is [tãpeɪ̯t] or [tãpɐɪ̯t] ? The last diphthong is not very clear. Fort123 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The latter, with the /ã/ centralized. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

type o

why? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why what? --JorisvS (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

hiver

This pronunciation is [ivaɛ̯χ], [ivæɛ̯χ] or [ivæχ] ? Fort123 (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely some [æ] in it. Furthermore, it sounds somewhat unstable, but the second component of the diphthong does not sound quite like [ɛ]. Maybe it is more like [ə], so [ivæə̯χ]. --JorisvS (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [paɛ̯ʃ] or [pæɪ̯ʃ] ? Fort123 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Closest to [päɘ̯ʃ] or roughly [päɪ̯ʃ]. --JorisvS (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

commonest

True, there's nothing wrong with "most common". But what's wrong with "commonest"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No editor of en:WP can be without a copy of CGEL at arm's reach. The matter comes up on pp. 1583-1584, but disappointingly the authors say that rules of thumb are of only minor help and the matter is for the most part lexically determined. So I offer you three Guardian stories: "Sam Murphy reveals the seven commonest mistakes runners make", "Awakening to the commonest film title", "Stress now commonest cause of long-term sick leave". -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is not as much as what's wrong with it, as it is what form is more usual. "Most common" is the more usual form. --JorisvS (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So "most common" is commoner than "commonest". If you're comfortabler with the commoner than with the less common, that's your preference; but is this some new MoS guideline that I haven't heard of? (I really don't know as I seldom hang out in those parts; I'm a mere commoner.) Incidentally, "while" is hugely commoner than "whilst" (even allowing for inflation of the former by tokens of the noun and verb "while"); but if you start converting the latter to the former you'll have various Brit editors frothing at the mouth with indignation. (I will not be among them.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Canadian French pronunciation

This pronunciation is between [lezɑːχ] and [lezɒːχ]? Fort123 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds about right. --JorisvS (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither [lezɑːχ] nor [lezɒːχ]? Fort123 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds indeed less rounded than [ɒː]. It could be written as [lezɒ̜ːχ] or [lezɑ̹ːχ]. --JorisvS (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This one sounds like [tɛɪ̯t] or [taɪ̯t]? Fort123 (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The former. --JorisvS (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[tæɪ̯t] or [tɐɪ̯t] are possible too? Fort123 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds more front to me the more often I hear it. You're right, it sounds a bit more open than typical [ɛ], so [tæɪ̯t] would seem to be more accurate. Moreover, the vowel is definitely not fully front, more like near-front, so [tæ̈ɪ̯t] seems most accurate. --JorisvS (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Last time, you told me that it's [sɞɡõdɜːχ], but [sɞɡõdɐːχ] is possible too? Fort123 (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't sound open enough for [ɐ]. --JorisvS (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

[sɞɡõdɜɛ̯χ]? Fort123 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't hear much of a diphthong. --JorisvS (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, or maybe something like [sɞɡõdɛ̈ɜ̯χ], starting near-front and going to mid. --JorisvS (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [vɐ̯ɛχ]? Fort123 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

More like [væə̯χ] or [væɜ̯χ], I'd say. The first vowel sound is definitely the nucleus and sounds pretty front. --JorisvS (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But I heard an extra-short [ɐ̯] before the [æ]. Maybe [vɐ̯æə̯χ]? Fort123 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't hear the extra-short [ɐ]? Fort123 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It could be that what you're hearing is simply the effect the consonant ([v]) has on the color of the following vowel. And although this could technically be transcribed as something along the line of what you're proposing, this would just mean that any and all monophthongs in syllables such as CVC would be triphthongs and transcribed as such and that diphthongs would be quadruphthongs (is that even a word?), etc.. Such effects of adjacent consonants on vowels is unavoidable, because the mouth has to transition from a state to make a consonant to a state to make a vowel (or vice-versa), and the intermediate states associated with such a transition also sound somewhat differently. --JorisvS (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [tɒːχ], [tɑɔ̯χ] or [tɒɔ̯χ]? Fort123 (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The middle, I'd say. --JorisvS (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's [tãpɐɪ̯t] or [tãmpɐɪ̯t]? The [m] is pronounced or not? Fort123 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no [m] of significance, though possibly the coordination of the closing of the nasal pharynx and the closing of the lips is not perfect, and hence the [p] might be prenasalized very slightly ([tãᵐpɐɪ̯t]). But such phenomena are the rule, not the exception. --JorisvS (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [balɛ̃ːnᵊ], [balẽːnᵊ] or [balɛ̃ẽ̯nᵊ]? Fort123 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It starts off with a nasalized version of something like [e] and continues on to a very thick [j], but the following [n] is not thick, and there is no extra-short vowel following the [n], so maybe [balẽːjˠn]. I also hear something about the [l]... Maybe it is because everything is nasalized, so [bãl̃ẽːj̃n]. --JorisvS (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's a [ɫ]? Fort123 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I considered that, but it doesn't quite sound as 'thick', cf. the sound file at velarized alveolar lateral approximant. --JorisvS (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [ɑ̃sɐɛ̯tχ] or [ɒ̃sɐɛ̯tχ]? Fort123 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The first syllable is [ɑ̃] or [ɒ̃]? Fort123 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to determine the exact degree of rounding, but it sounds closer to [ɑ̃] to me. --JorisvS (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [kʰɛɪ̯s], [kʰaɪ̯s] or [kʰɐɪ̯s]? Fort123 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

[kʰɐɪ̯s]. --JorisvS (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Meridional French

This one is [kã] or [kaŋ]? Fort123 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

[kãŋ]. The [ŋ] is very clearly there. If you'd want to be very precise, the velar are fronted (so are pre-velar) and the vowel is front, so [k̟ã̟ŋ̟]. --JorisvS (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

template

FYI, re. this,[23] if you put "|u=km" in the template, it will prevent separation at line breaks. — kwami (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome

You are welcome. Hyacinth (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

caisse

This one is [kʲɛi̯s] or [kʲæi̯s]? Fort123 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

[kʲʰɛi̯s]. --JorisvS (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is [fäɪ̯t] or [fɑɪ̯t]? Fort123 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

[fɐɪ̯tʰ]. --JorisvS (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This one sounds like [ɚ̃ kʲi.lɔ̜.maɪ̯tχ] or [ɚ̃ kʲi.lɔ̜.mæɪ̯tχ] ? Fort123 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

[ɚ̃ kʲi.lɔ̜.maɪ̯tχ] ? Fort123 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

More like [ɐ]. --JorisvS (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 FY27

I like how you re-worded 2013 FY27 for the technical astro crowd, but I am concerned that readers will think that means that it is currently the 9th brightest TNO when it has an apparent magnitude of 22 as a result of being 80AU from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that part. I was thinking about rewording it to "ninth-intrinsically-brightest", but that could also be confused with albedo. --JorisvS (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Artos

This time you've got it right.
Last time you hadn't... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that thanks to your revert. --JorisvS (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reporting User:Lighthouse01. Thank you. CodeCat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

buy

It sounds like [baɪ̯] or [b̥aɪ̯] ? Fort123 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really sound voiced. [b̥aɪ̯] sounds about accurate. --JorisvS (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

peut-être

This pronunciation is [pœtɑɪ̯tʀ̥] or [pø̞tɑɪ̯tʀ̥]? Fort123 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

[pœtäɪ̯tχ]. --JorisvS (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now, I think that [tãpæɪ̯t] is more accurate than [tãpɐɪ̯t], is it true? Fort123 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not sure? Fort123 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. It may be that what you're hearing (and what I heard too) is that the vowel is not quite central, but near-central. --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, great thanks for your corrections in Khinalug people article. I did translation from ruwiki, and was going to ask someone for the help in checking my errors. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've now looked at the rest of it, too. There is one word I could not interpret in this context: consonance (see tag). If you could elaborate it, I could then clarify it. --JorisvS (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Added in the Talk page. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian language

"Language is a living thing. We can feel it changing. Parts of it become old: they drop off and are forgotten. New pieces bud out, spread into leaves, and become big branches, proliferating." (brainyquote.com) What do you mean "Not the same Bosnian language."? Bosnian started somehow to become what it is today. --WikiLite91 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The only coherent entity out there that can be called "Bosnian" is (modern) Standard Bosnian (which is the topic of the article). Current day-to-day speech by Bosniaks is only "Bosnian" in that it is spoken by Bosniaks, and is often more distinct internally than from the day-to-day speech of Croatians or Serbians. A dictionary from several hundred years ago cannot be about (modern) Standard Bosnian, but only about the speeches of Bosniaks of the current time, which even then formed no coherent entity. The right article for this would be Serbo-Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll make article about Old Bosnian, if you say so. --WikiLite91 (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that makes a coherent topic, no more than, amoung others, 'Croatian language' as the "modern day-to-day speech by ethnic Croats", 'Serbian language' as the "modern day-to-day speech by ethnic Serbs", or 'Bosnian language' as the "modern day-to-day speech by ethnic Bosniaks". It should simply go into the history section at Serbo-Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I realize what you're saying. But, at that time (year 1632) name Serbo-Croatian didn't exist. That name appeared maybe 50 yrs ago as political name. We are witnesses that names as Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian have longer history. --WikiLite91 (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles are not about names, but about concepts, so whether a name existed at some time or not is quite irrelevant. (the term "Serbo-Croatian" actually appeared in the 19th century, but, as I said, that's irrelevant to this question). --JorisvS (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on man, why do you keep Serbo-Croatian as living language. You can nowhere find it's use today. --WikiLite91 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is. In Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro it is alive and kicking, spoken by many millions of people. It may not locally be referred to by "Serbo-Croatian", but terms or names are irrelevant: There is a common language spoken in said countries, regardless of what it is called, and regardless of feelings of natives. Put a Serb somewhere in Croatia, and he'll communicate just fine with the locals, so by definition they speak the same language, regardless of ethnicity, history, wishful thinking, etc. --JorisvS (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have knowledge about that. But no Serb will tell you he speaks Serbo-Croatian, nor Croat, nor Bosniak. And history about language is more than relevant to stay on Wikipedia. "Old Bosnian", as you say, is spoken on today's land of Bosnia and it has bigger factor than Serbo-Croatian. So history about Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi Bosnevi should be on Bosnian language site, not Serbo-Croat. Do you mind if at that times Bosnian was not booked somewhere (by ISO std.)? I still cannot find Latin language here, but it has article and history here. Or you are trying to change history? Also I realized that whatever I say, you will abandon, and proove me wrong with some weak refs. Are you Serb or Croat? --WikiLite91 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not about terms or self-designations. Whether a Serb will tell he speaks Serbian, not Serbo-Croatian, does not affect that the language, as defined as a set of mutually intelligible dialects, is Serbo-Croatian (it could have been called something else (in English), but this does not affect the facts). Whether a 17th-century dictionary had the most profound effect on only a part of the Serbo-Croatian-speaking area does not affect whether something is a language (again as defined above).

That the terms are the same to refer to what's in this dictionary and the standard language of a modern state does not mean that the dictionary's stuff should appear on the article about the modern standard language. It's like treating Ancient Macedonian (related to Greek) at the Macedonian language article (the latter is, as you'll know, Slavic). --JorisvS (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your argument is invalid, because Wikipedia on Bosnian added edits about Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi Bosnevi's book as oldest vocabulary of south-eastern Europe, and Croats/Serbs don't accept it as their vocabulary because he was Bosniak. This happened in 1600's and Serbo-Croat appeared in 1800's. Language of those times is now root of today's standard Bosnian. --WikiLite91 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian Wikipedia's are infested (excuse the word) by POV nationalists who'd like to make the world believe that they speak different languages altogether, which is just ridiculous when you look at the facts. I'll stress again that the Serbo-Croatian language developed long before the term "Serbo-Croatian" emerged, in early forms roughly a millennium ago or so. However, if words in that dictionary have been used only Bosniaks ever since that time, it may be possible to mention it as a source of Bosnian-specific vocabulary, but only if that assertion itself is sourceable. --JorisvS (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

kung-fu

[kɔ̜ŋfu] or [kɔ̜ŋɡfu]? Fort123 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear no [g]. --JorisvS (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian

You've made mistake. Bosnian is notable among Serbian and Croatian by using Turkish and German phrases. Read second part of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLite91 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where? The only thing I see is the sentence ".... also contains a number of Germanisms not often heard in Croatian or Serbian, which was in use since the Austro-Hungarian Empire." in the second paragraph, which uses a ref that does not say anything remotely like that (check it out: [24]). Even if nevertheless true, it is a matter of degree and should be noted as such. But first it requires an actual source. --JorisvS (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

boîte

This pronunciation is [bwɛɪ̯t] or [bwɐɪ̯t]? Fort123 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

More like [bwʚɪ̯t], the vowel is definitely rounded. --JorisvS (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

tête

• http://www.forvo.com/word/tête/#fr

That Canadian pronunciation is [tæɪ̯t] or [tɐɪ̯t] ? Fort123 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Spotlight effect

A new group in my History of Psychology class has totally rewritten this article. They are in a bit of a quandry because they think the existing article should just be deleted and replaced by theirs. I recommended they get advice from you on this issue. The new article is much better and I hope it meets with your approval. J.R. Council (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The link to my sandbox, the updated version of Spotlight Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarindaKB/sandbox

I think it's best to delete the existing article entirely, and replace it with our updated version. I know that's not typically the best option, but in this case we recycled the information and entirely reformatted it…Thoughts? MarindaKB (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"A" vs "the"

"A language"/ "a dialect" is the way we speak about languages. "English is a West Germanic language that was first spoken in early medieval England and is now a global lingua franca", NOT "English is the West Germanic language that was first spoken in early medieval England and is now a global lingua franca". There are no other "West Germanic languages that were first spoken in early medieval England and are now a global lingua franca".

"Sicilian (lu sicilianu, Italian: lingua siciliana, also known as Siculu or Calabro-Sicilian) is a Romance language. "

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That sentence appears to try to say things that should, that way, be put into two sentences: 1) "English is a West Germanic language", 2) "It was first spoken [...]". If properly put into a single sentence, it should become "the West Germanic language that [whatever uniquely specifies it). "Sicilian is a Romance language" quite correctly uses "a", although a proper definition, which the first sentence of the lead should give, should uniquely specify which Romance language it is. "It is the way we do it" is a void argument. --JorisvS (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, show me what you are made of - go to English language and change "English is a West Germanic language" to "English is the West Germanic language". Please, do it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm thorough. The problem with that sentence is that, as I said, there are two sentences put in one. All information in both is so prominent as to merit first-sentence position. I have not yet figured out how to resolve this (else I would already have changed it).

Let's analyze the situation using a simple example:

Give me a book. – "a book", not specified any further.

Give me a book that is on the table. – specifies a set from which to choose a book (those that are on the table).

Give me the book that is on the table. – the indicates that there is only one book on the table. Now "that is on the table" identifies uniquely which book I'm requesting, whereas earlier it was used to specify the set from which to choose.

Now, this shows the meaning of the word the vs. a. --JorisvS (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

JorisvS, let's look at this sentence:

The olive tree is *a* tree that grows [..where ..] of [..metres ..] heihgt, and ... produces a fruit from which olive oil is extracted.

• The first part tells us that the olive tree is a tree, one among many - easy enough
• The second part contains additional information that points to a specific tree
• Logically, from the second part we can dedude that there is only ONE such tree
• That being the case, the first part should read "the olive tree is the tree ...
• I fully agree with you there. But, when the two are thrown together, we have to treat them as separate sentences, one with an indefinite article, the other with the definite article.
• The article is available in 13 languages. I can't read Polish or Russian, I can read all remaining 11. Latin and Esperanto don't use articles, so 9 languages of the 11 that I can read use articles. Of these, Venetian and Lombardian (2 out of 9) say it is "the tree"; all others (7 out of 9) say it is "a tree".
• Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of contemporary ethnic groups may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

pêche

Last time, you told me [päɪ̯ʃ], but [pɐɪ̯ʃ] is more exact ? Fort123 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

S/C family

Hello. I see you have a good knowledge about linguistics. 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. --MunjaWiki (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. What is it you ask? --JorisvS (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Italo-Dalmatian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:JorisvS: Why have you deleted a large portion of Italo-Dalmatian_languages as rv? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italo-Dalmatian_languages&oldid=627252316 My edits are not vandalism. Saying vague things like blah blah doesn't help. I shall explain the meaning behind the various sections to you, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italo-Dalmatian_languages&oldid=627241133

Please note Italo-Dalmatian = Italian Romance plus Dalmatian, in case you didn't realise!

Italian Dialects or Languages. This explains about the various Italian Romance languages, which are all part of Italo Dalmatian!

The Italian Dialects are the different linguistic varieties of Italian spoken in Italy. They correspond to the languages classified as being Italian Romance (or Italo-Romance), and hence Italo-Dalmatian. This explains why the Italian dialects must be discussed as part of Italo-Dalmatian. Although they are labelled as dialects (It. dialetti), they can also be considered as individual languages, as they can differ widely from Standard Italian. They do not include the Sardinian language. This explains why the Italian romance languages are sometimes called dialects.

The meaning of the “Italian Dialects” is not that of merely cataloguing the different linguistic varieties spoken in Italy, but instead of cataloguing the linguistic varieties spoken in Italy that are considered to be Italian in nature. But there is no absolute judge of which varieties are Italian in nature, as there is no means of creating a clear consensus. But some varieties are not considered to be Italian varieties, but are instead considered as being non-Italian varieties which are traditionally spoken in Italy. This is often the case when languages originate from outside of Italy. This section explains why this is sometimes disagreements over which languages consist of Italo-Romance.

The Gallo-Italic languages, and the Venetian language, are considered to be Northern Italian Dialects. But they are also considered to be Western Romance languages. So it is possible to classify them as being both Western Romance and Italian Romance. This explains why the Gallo-Italic languages can be thought of being both Italian Romance and Western Romance.

Regional Italian has a different meaning: it is the varieties of Standard Italian, which is based on the Florentine dialect of Tuscan, spoken in different Italian regions, which have had influences from the traditional local Italian dialects. So they are similar to Standard Italian except for some local influences. Explains the difference between Italian dialects (same as Italian Romance) and Regional Italian.

There are two major groups of Italian Dialects spoken in Italy: the Northern (Settentrionale) dialects; and the Central-Southern (Centro-Meridionale) dialects. They are divided by the La Spezia–Rimini Line, which is an isogloss, a geographical line that divides the Italian dialects in terms of linguistics. It roughly follows the divide between the Italian regions of Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna. The line can also be thought as dividing the Western Romance from the Central (Italo-Dalmation) Romance, Sardinian Romance and Eastern Romance, the main four groups of Romance languages. Explians why the Gallo-Italic languages and Venetian are traditionally thought as being Western Romance, despite being also called Italian dialects.

Northern Italian Dialects or Languages

The Gallo-Italic languages and the Venetian language are considered to be Northern dialects of the Italian language, hences Italian Romance, hence Italo-Dalmatian. Expalins why Gallo-Italic languages should be discussed under Italo-Romance But they are also considered to be Western Romance languages.

• The Gallo-Italic languages of Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian (Ligure), Lombard (Lombardo) (includes Milanese), and Piedmontese (Piemontese), the regional languages of the Italian regions of Emilia-Romagna, Liguria, Lombardy and Piedmont. These are usually thought of being Western Romance languages, often included in Gallo-Romance. But they are also considered to be dialects of Italian. Explains why they could also be considered Italian Romance. They have features of both Gallo-Romance languages and other Italo-Dalmation languages.
• The Venetian language (It. Veneto), the regional language of the Venice and the Veneto region of Italy. This language is usually considered as Western Romance, but is also considered to be a dialect of Italian. Explains why it can be called Italian Romance. It is sometimes placed in Gallo-Italic, but is more often thought as being seperate from Gallo-Italic. It has features of the Italo-Dalmation languages Istriot and Tuscan.
• Istriot (It. Istriota), spoken on the Istrian peninsula of Croatia, Slovenia, and Italy. It is usually classified as Italo-Dalmation, so should be discussed as a Northern Italian dialect. It has some similarity to the Venetian language.

Some other Romance languages are spoken in North Italy, but are not included in the Northern Italian Dialects, being seen as Gallic languages. Explains why there is confusion over which languages comprise of the Northern Italian Dialects Also, some Non-Romance languages are also spoken. See the languages of Italy. --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You can copy-paste your text on my talk page and bold some things, but my answer remains as simple as I've given twice before in the edit summaries: It is off-topic. I'll explain how it is off-topic, though: That article is about a branch of Romance languages, specifically the Italo-Dalmatian languages. Information about Gallo-Italic should not be in there, unless Italo-Dalmatian languages are compared to each other and to languages belonging to other branches. Dialetti italiani is Italian POV for the Romance languages spoken in Italy, which are vastly more different than anything rightfully called "dialects", at least in its English meaning, and so this has, again, no bearing on this article. --JorisvS (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: You're wrong, and I'll explain why.

(i) Firstly you've only addressed the Gallo-Italic languages. There is a whole host of other matters, that i have highlighted in bold. Why don't you discuss all these? Pleae go through all the points I've raised.

(ii) The Italian Dialects are not the same as the Romance languages spoken in Italy. Dialetti italiani is not Italian POV for the Romance languages spoken in Italy.I've researched this thoroughly. For example, in Northern Italy, Rhaeto-Romance languages Ladin and Frulian, Arpitan and the French language are all Romance languages, and are all spoken in Northern Italy. But only the Gallo-Italic languages and Venetian are included in the Northern Dialcts of the Italian Language. I can give you sources if you want. Look at the sources I've given, or if not available please look at http://www.evolpub.com/Italiandialects/ITALdial.html . It makes it quite clear that the Northern Dialects are regarded as dialects of the Italian language, while Rhaeto-Romance languages Ladin and Friulian, Arpitan and the French language are not. In addition, sardinian is a Romance language spoken in Italy, but is not included in the Italian dialects or Italian Romance. Also, Corsican is not spoken in Italy (Corsica is a French Island) but is considered an Italian dialect. The confusion arises becuase they are North of the La Spezia–Rimini Line, so are also thought as being Western Romance. But you will note that according to modern classification, a superfamily of Italo-Western puts Italo-Dalmatian and Western together, basically considering them as the same thing. This is now accepted on most sites I've visited. Read about this if you really belive there is a strong divide between the Northern Dialcts and the Central-Southern Dialects. They are certainly not accepted by the Italians. Also languages like Venetian are quite close to Tuscan and Istriot. Also look at Venetian language "Venetian is a Romance language and therefore descends from Vulgar Latin. Specifically, it belongs to the Italo-Romance group, most closely related to Istriot on the one hand and Tuscan–Italian on the other. Also look at Gallo-Italic_languages " Most commonly, they are grouped with the Gallo-Romance languages, but some Italian linguists prefer to group them with the Italo-Romance languages. ".

Please read the following, i assume you can read Italian. Carlo Tagliavini, Le origni delle lingue neolatine, Bologna, Pàtron, 19726, p. 396. «Col nome di dialetti settentrionali o alto-italiani intendiamo i dialetti gallo-italici, il Veneto e l'Istriano [lege: Istriot language].» Also read Lorenzo Renzi, Nuova introduzione alla filologia romanza, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1994, p. 176 «I dialetti settentrionali formano un blocco abbastanza compatto con molti tratti comuni che li accostano, oltre che tra loro, qualche volta anche alla parlate cosiddette ladine e alle lingue galloromanze [...] Alcuni fenomeni morfologici innovativi sono pure abbastanza largamente comuni, come la doppia serie pronominale soggetto (non sempre in tutte le persone)[...] Ma più spesso il veneto si distacca dal gruppo, lasciando così da una parte tutti gli altri dialetti, detti gallo-italici.»

(iii) Please explain the additional points raised, there are a lot of additional highlights in the above section I would like to discuss. Please check all the references if you want to understand things. --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you try to make your point with less text, please? That focuses the discussion.

(ii) Okay, dialetti italiani is especially used to refer to those languages that do not have political recognition (as the result from previous lengthy discussions and arguments at Italian dialects). Quoting the English Wikipedia does not help, because it has self-corrected to use the linguistic definition of what are languages. No matter anyway, because it is all wholly irrelevant to an article about a specific branch of Romance languages.

(i) "Firstly you've only addressed the Gallo-Italic languages.". Just an example. Any other branch will do.

(iii) Make your points succinctly and I will. --JorisvS (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Please answer my questions!

(ii) You're wrong about political recognition. Sardinian is recognised politically, but is not an Italian dialect. Look at any text book. Also, look at the huge number of examples and references that I've given. I ddn't just quote english wikipedia, I just pointed out that not even wikipedia articles supported your position. Look at all the references I have supplied!

(i) Thats not good enough. I asked you specific questions and your refuse to answer.

(iii)Succinctly, I have explained to you following:

The Italian Dialects are the different linguistic varieties of Italian spoken in Italy. They correspond to the languages classified as being Italian Romance (or Italo-Romance), and hence Italo-Dalmatian.

Why there is sometimes disagreements over which languages consist of Italo-Romance.

Why the Gallo-Italic languages can be thought of being both Italian Romance and Western Romance.

The difference between Italian dialects (same as Italian Romance) and Regional Italian.

Italo-Dalmatian = Italian Romance plus Dalmatian. Italian Romance = Dialetti italiani.

Why many Romance languages spoken in Italy are not considered to be Italian dialects.

That italo-Western is now supported by most linguists.

Please look at my examples for why these are true. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion continued at Talk:Italo-Dalmatian languages --JorisvS (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest consolidation

JorvisvS, may I suggest you close this discussion on your talk page using {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} templates with a pointer to the article talk page where the discussion is continuing with multiple parties? The Dissident Aggressor 20:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Good suggestion. --JorisvS (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NFCC issues

Please note that WP:NFCC#9 straightforwardly prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace, including use in templates. Non-free content policy also does not make exceptions based on educational-use-only licenses. Using a nonfree file in a template is automatically detected and reported; even if I were to ignore it, another editor would soon repeat the removal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is stupid not to make a distinction between images that have no free license at all and those that are free-to-use for educational purposes. But okay, you're enforcing this without regard to specifics and makes that template useless, so have the guts to take the next logical step: propose it for deletion! --JorisvS (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

vert

This pronunciation is [vɛ̈ːχ], [væːχ] or [vɑɛ̯χ]? Fort123 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

More like [vɑə̯ʀ̆]. --JorisvS (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

caisse

[kɛs] or [kɛːs]? Fort123 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Phonetically something in between, I'd say. [kɛˑs]. --JorisvS (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[ɡla.sõʊ̯̃] or [ɡla.sɒ̃ʊ̯̃]? Fort123 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. Fort123 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The first part is [glæs...], but I can't quite determine the final part. I've a hard time hearing a diphthong but can't fully exclude the possibility. A syllabic nasal like [ŋ̍] with some specifics may also be a possibility. --JorisvS (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe [ɡlæ̞sɔ̃]. Fort123 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly not 100% accurate, but useful for all intents and purposes, I guess. --JorisvS (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Saraiki language

Dear, Saraiki is a language according to so many references given. so do not remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.12.43 (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass blanking is not constructive and so no option for you. --JorisvS (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for the Thanks !!!

Adjutor101 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --JorisvS (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mass removal of language articles by Ryulong

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my revertion on Kunigami language[25]. Ryulong is indeed acting as a vandal. Without justifiable reason, he is mass-removing content with reliable sources (I found that I have cited 21 unique sources).

When we have two competing versions of an article, article with and without much information, it is reasonable to choose the former as a working version. I have never heard of any restrictive policy in Wikipedia: we can add content only if we reach consensus to do so. Quite the opposite. We can freely add content and remove it only if we reach consensus to do so.

And actually, the discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. I appreciate if you share your opinion with us. Thank you. --Nanshu (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to take sides content-wise, but he is not a vandal. Read up on WP:Vandalism. Specifically, "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" does not apply. Accusing someone of vandalism should not be done lightly. He is not 'deleting' those articles, only reverting your edits to them. In your case there is a content dispute, which should be worked out on the talk page. Size per se does not mean anything, because a lenghty article can be inaccurate and a short article accurate (just as the other way around). The default stance is that in case of a content dispute, the long-standing version is kept while it is worked out on the talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. But I disagree with you over the-long-standing-version argument. Is it backed by an official policy? And even if we take that policy, this version was there for nearly a month. --Nanshu (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD discusses the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. After step two, the revert, the article is back at its original. It does not really matter much after how much time the edit was reverted: It has now been contested and should be discussed at the talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

which or that

Please produce a citation supporting your claim about restrictive clauses. It is not mentioned in any dictionary I have seen, and is not used in British English - not even at Oxford University, of which I am a graduate. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add that "which" is commonly used also in restrictive clauses, but that there is a better, non-ambiguous alternative available (like since vs. because and while vs. whereas). This means that I did not technically "correct" anything, only polished it. English relative clauses discusses this and it also noted at wikt:which, for example. --JorisvS (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Polishing" is a matter of taste.

I took a quick look at English relative clauses. As far as I could see, it draws only on U.S. sources. This strengthens my conviction that this is an American preference, which is not generally known, and certainly not observed, by British writers, even highly educated ones. To Brits, there is no reduction of ambiguity from using "that" instead of "which", or the other examples you mentioned (using another Americanism, "vs.").

If I ever dig myself out from the pile of stuff I have to do, I'll come back to this.

Best.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Many (possibly more British people, but Americans too) do not make much of a distinction, but AFAIK it is never actually wrong to construct a sentence with "that" for a restrictive instance without a preposition or a sentence with "which" in a non-restrictive instance, regardless of one's form of English. So, given that some readers do make a distinction and others don't, it does not hurt when the text formally makes a distinction.

I'm curious, if "vs." is an Americanism, what would a Brit use? --JorisvS (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They abbreviate "versus" just to the letter "v". Take a look at the sports section on bbc.com. You'll probably find several examples. DOwenWilliams (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It is not noted at Wiktionary wikt:versus and related pages, nor at Comparison of American and British English. Maybe you could (help) fix this? --JorisvS (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bolognese dialect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labio-velar consonant. 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) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken brackets

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Josep Comas i Solà 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:

• espanoles-9291/ 1915: Descubrimiento del primer asteroide por científicos españoles]</ref><ref>[http://lascronicasdethot.blogspot.nl/2012/05/josep-comas-sola-villa-urania-barcelona.html Villa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken brackets 2

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ranglong language 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:

• '''Ranglong''' is an unclassified [[Sino-Tibetan languages|Sino-Tibetan] (possibly [[Kukish languages|Kukish]]) language of Burma.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your efforts on "Urdu" Adjutor101 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Fehrenbach's star

Well there you go. Good research. Here is the Simbad page for it [26]. Still, a little obscure, no Wikipedia page, and the reference was messed up so it needed editing anyway. Not strictly a supergiant, but an interesting proto-planetary nebula. Lithopsian (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Foxtail millet

Since Kwami seems to be less active these days, I thought I'd ask you about the latest edit to Foxtail millet. I wonder whether the addition of "spoken" and "written" was necessary. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, separate mentions of 'Mandarin' and 'Chinese' makes no sense whatsoever. Chinese is a language family more diverse than the Romance languages in which Mandarin is one group. Standard Chinese is more or less the Beijing dialect/variety of Mandarin. I don't think adding 'spoken' or 'written' makes much sense: both lines are in written language, after all. The problem is the extreme ambiguity of the 'Chinese' mention: which form of Chinese is intended? --JorisvS (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I wondered about that mention of "Chinese", too. Do you know an editor who could help sort this out? CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. Also, the tones are lacking from the "Chinese" mention, which means it is sure to be at least somewhat wrong. I've cleaned up that section and removed that entry. If someone likes to readd it, s/he should specify which form of Chinese. --JorisvS (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You did a great job! CorinneSD (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by User Nestwiki on Urdu

User Nestwiki is continuously spreading inaccurate info on Urdu. I have given him a warning on his talk page, but I don't think it will be fruitful. He has recieved several other warnings to for other vandalisms. What do you suggest our course of action should be to safeguard Urdu from further Vandalism. Regards ! Adjutor101 (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ANI? --JorisvS (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pali

I just wondered what you thought of the latest edit to Pali.[27] An editor removed a section of text saying that it was unsourced. I know that is often done, but if the information is valuable, perhaps the source can be found. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dgdcw seems right in that it looks unsourced. The part saying that "Pali" derives from "Nepali" minus the "Ne" raises doubts about that text for me. That said, it could nevertheless be true, but we don't know. Maybe move to talk page saying that it was removed from the article pending a citation. --JorisvS (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

une fête

[ʏn ˈfɛːt] or [ʏn ˈfɜːt]? 138.229.17.197 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Closer to the latter, though I think it is a bit fronted. --JorisvS (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Calouste Gulbenkian

I wonder if you'd take a look at the latest edit to Calouste Gulbenkian, adding an IPA pronunciation of the name at the beginning of the article. Is that an appropriate edit? CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be, though it should be formatted somewhat differently. I do wonder about the usefulness of adding IPA for the typical English conversion of orthography to pronunciation, maybe except his first name in term of stress and pronunciation of the <a>. --JorisvS (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the IPA pronunciation guide may be useful when it is not immediately clear how to pronounce the name, but I think it's pretty clear from the way the name is spelled how to pronounce it in English. I've had this discussion elsewhere, but I'll just mention that Americans generally do not learn the IPA symbols, even when learning a foreign language, so it means nothing to us. I would, of course, search out the IPA symbols if I were puzzled as to how to pronounce a name, but in this case I think it is unnecessary. But I know others do learn the IPA symbols, so I guess it should stay. CorinneSD (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

chè

[t͡ʃɛ̈] or [t͡ʃæ]? 138.229.17.197 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The more I listen to it, the more the former vowel appears to sound closer, but the consonant is rather [t͡ɕ]. Vietnamese also has tones, which in this case I think is low-falling. In sum, this gives [t͡ɕɛ̈˧˩]. --JorisvS (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

[ˈwɪmɪn] or [ˈwɪmɛn]? 138.229.17.197 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Between [ə] and [ɛ], I think. --JorisvS (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken brackets 3

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Modern Greek 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:

• A study of dialect of Silly, Cappadocia and Pharasa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>)]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, same at Cappadocian Greek. --JorisvS (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

baleine

You heard [baɫeɪ̯n] or [baɫeɪ̯nᵊ]? Is there an [ᵊ] at the end? 138.229.17.197 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The [n] has been pronounced rather long, so [nː]. The rest is just noise and the speaker ending his utterance. I think that the /a/ is not fully open, closer to [ɐ], and the /eɪ̯/ is nasalized due to the following /n/. This leads to [bɐɫẽɪ̯nː]. --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But I heard a extra-short [ᵊ] at the end. 64.18.87.72 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the [nː] is more accurately [nn̩]. The rest is really just the speaker ending his utterance. --JorisvS (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why

Why on Telugu language you changed M.S. Andronov to Andronov? It was his full name. నిజానికి (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not his full name, those are initials. Initials are generally not very useful to add. A first name would a whole different story. --JorisvS (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He has no page on wiki, would you create one or at least describe something on the reference? I have seen expanded reference and they provide the full name. నిజానికి (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't you do that? The first step would be to find out his first name. --JorisvS (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Mikhail Sergeevich Andronov. నిజానికి (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[28]: I was ordering the names by alphabets. నిజానికి (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I thought they were ordered by importance, which is a better way, but more careful examination has suggested it really wasn't. I have fixed it. --JorisvS (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wil送

[wɪlsʊŋ] or [wɪlsɔŋ]? 138.229.17.197 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the latter. It is also (allophonically) nasalized, so [wɪlsɔ̃ŋ]. --JorisvS (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe [wɪlso̞ŋ]? 64.18.87.72 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though still nasalized. --JorisvS (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

poutine

[ˈput͡sɪn] or [ˈput͡sɪnᵊ]? 64.18.87.72 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[pʰuˈt͡sʰɪnʱ]. It ends with aspiration, which could give the impression of a schwa. --JorisvS (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[ˈsɛt͡sɪl] or [ˈsɛt͡sɪlᵊ]? 64.18.87.72 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The [l] is very short and followed by some aspiration. --JorisvS (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[tʀ̥äɛ̈z] or [tʀ̥äɛ̈zᵊ]? 138.229.17.197 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Here there is a schwa: the latter. --JorisvS (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

[paʁæ̃] or [paʀæ̃]? 64.18.87.72 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult, because the voicing is strongly aspirated, but I tend towards the latter. The vowels are more or less identical, which gives then gives [pæʀʱæ̃]. --JorisvS (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative names

I think of these mentions as a courtesy to readers, so they don't need to follow the links. When there are only three items in a list, they are really not that excessive and distracting. Especially Vogul and Ostyak are really common in older (and Russophone) literature. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Only a courtesy to older and Russophone readers who are already familiar with the topic, then. Especially to readers who are not familiar with the topic, the majority of people, multiple alternative tends to be distracting and/or confusing, even if there are only a few. --JorisvS (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, but what exactly is the basis for your assessment that they tend to be distracting/confusing even in a case like this? Have you done surveys? Or is that simply your personal supposition? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Without the alternative names, all three can be seen at once, without having to make saccades. Saccades are eye movements used during reading, among others, and during which one cannot see anything. Saccades take time to make. Once these alternative names are mentioned, one has to make at least one saccade, and many will probably even make two. Aside from taking time, it then takes more effort to process. The overall effect is not huge, but given that it may only add slightly to some of those who are already familiar with the topic, I think the disadvantage outweighs the benefit. --JorisvS (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I already knew what saccades are, but failed to consider the issue from this point of view. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oort cloud and asteroid

Copied from User talk:WilyD/Archives/#Oort cloud and asteroid

Please explain what you mean exactly with your short "explanations". --JorisvS (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your original research. In this case, MNRAS, ApJ, AJ, A&A, Icarus, and so on are available for that purpose. In the interim, articles need to reflect the published ideas of scholars and other authors, and not your own opinion. Simply repeatedly inserting your own opinion into articles is not allowed, either. If you know better than all the scientists and educators who've worked on the subject, publish your work elsewhere first. WilyD 11:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear what's unclear to you. What you think things should be called doesn't matter unless you publish it in a reliable source; in the interim, it's Paul Weissman's, Hal Levison's, and other people who've published reliable works on the subject whose opinion matters. WilyD 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming rather bad faith. I'll be more clear to you by reformulation my edit summary another way: How is using the terms "non-outgassing", "minor planet", and using the most common convention for the word "asteroid" and the one Wikipedia uses (!), 'publishing my original research'? --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me. I'm clearly not assuming bad faith. You're experienced enough that you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a publisher of your opinion, but you're doing it anyways, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt. But you know now (or if you're still unfamiliar with the policy on publishing your own research here, please go read it). It's not okay to replace the terminology of the literature (and other published sources, I suppose) with one you've cooked up yourself. WilyD 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean! You don't really explain what is "my own opinion" about it, yet you accuse me of publishing it. I do not see any opinion at all. "Non-outgassing minor planet" is a description, not a term that I've 'cooked up'. Or do you deny that 1996 PW is a) a minor planet, and b) that it does not outgas? --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying your conclusions don't flow logically. I'm merely saying you can't publish your conclusions here first. Publish them in Monthly Notices (or wherever) first, and then they can be included in Wikipedia. In the interim, we have to use the conclusions of people like Weissman, Hicks, and so forth, who've done that. WilyD 12:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How so "conclusions"?? You basically keep repeating that, but you don't explain it. And you should easily have noticed that you should stop responding on my talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Non-outgassing minor planet" is a description, of course, but the word used by scientists and other people familiar with the subject matter is asteroid. Beyond this, just because a description is accurate doesn't mean it's good - "non-sandwich" or "non-elephant" would obvious be correct descriptors, but would also be horribly misleading. It's your own conclusion "non-outgassing minor planet" is a good or appropriate descriptor. This could even be true (it's not - whether or not an object is currently active is not the distinction being drawn in the literature, of course), but it's still your own opinion, and hijacking Wikipedia to publish your own opinions is still not appropriate. WilyD 14:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hijacking Wikipedia"? Seriously?

But thank you for finally actually responding. "Non-elephant" is vague, whereas "non-outgassing" (arguably better rephrased to "not known to be outgassing") is a specific (non-vague) term used to refer to a characteristic, so your comparison does not hold. The problem with parrotting specific words for specific instances is that it creates a non-uniformity in the meaning of the words, and hence creates unnecessary ambiguity and unnecessarily decreases clarity. Now, "asteroid" has always been a word without an exact definition, but has come to be increasingly referred to those minor planets out to the orbit of Jupiter, see asteroid. This is also the agreed-upon use on Wikipedia. Other minor planets have also occasionally been referred to as "asteroid", especially those that were discovered early, such as 944 Hidalgo (the first minor planet discovered with a semi-major axis beyond Jupiter's), and "asteroid" is sometimes also used to include all minor planets, including e.g. all Kuiper-belt objects. It is not OR to avoid referring to these as asteroids; OR refers to the actual content, not the specific terms used (nor the specific punctuation of terms, see e.g. this discussion). Moreover, this term is easily avoided by using more-specific and better-defined words, which increases the informative value to our readers anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Usurping the devices of Wikipedia to advance your own agenda to it's detriment; yes, hijacking is appropriate here. "Non-outgassing" is still your own idea, that doesn't come from the source (read the paper - it's like three pages long). And it's not simply rephrasing - the authors of the source is question would disagree with what you're saying. The sources say these are asteroids, and don't use outgassing/not outgassing as such a distinction (active asteroids certainly outgas). It's merely your own conclusion that the entire scientific community is wrong, and your own ideas are in fact right. WilyD 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's, again, assuming bad faith. I'm trying to have a decent discussion (WP:EQ), in which we can point out errors on each other's parts, without being accused of such strong things as 'hijacking', 'advancing your own agenda', and the like. If you think "non-outgassing" is wrong and should be reworded, perhaps to "without any evidence of cometary activity", just say that. --JorisvS (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't your intention to hijack Wikipedia to publish your own ideas, then stop trying to do it. It's not hard. Again, stop throwing transparently bogus charges at me; I haven't said anything about your intent, only factually described your actions. Beyond that, read Weissman & Levison; it's quite clearl they're talking about asteroids, not just bodies that don't show evidence of cometary activity. It's not hard to find - it's in the title (and repeatedly thereafter). Plus, your idea that you're trying to insert isn't even right; asteroids can display cometary activity: Active Asteroids. If you think they're wrong, find a source that suggests their wrong, don't just keeping trying to argue for your own idea. (Of course, I don't believe there are any sources that suggest they're wrong; but you're free to look). WilyD 09:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hijacking", and "publishing my own ideas" is not a factual description of my actions, but your interpretation of my actions. I have read that article. They primarily use "asteroid" in the sense of a 'rocky minor planet'. This is one of the more common uses of the word "asteroid". However, they do not claim that 1996 PW is an asteroid/rocky minor planet at all! They speculate about the possibility that it is one and compute probabilities. Therefore, it would, in fact, be OR to call 1996 PW an asteroid (as meaning a rocky minor planet) based on that article, because they acknowledge that it could be an extinct comet (icy body). Asteroids that display cometary activity has "asteroid" meaning 'minor planet from the inner Solar System', not in the sense that Weissman & Levison use it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

While they decide they can't tell if 1996 PW is an asteroid or not (and the subsequent papers on the subject run into the same problem), that's neither here nor there; the work still calculates the expect fraction of asteroids in the Oort cloud, and hasn't been refuted (unless there's something I'm not aware of, which is doubtful). Weissman & Levison calculate that the Oort cloud should be a couple percent asteroids, which is the state of the art. This is the idea that the article needs to reflect, not your own ideas about what is or isn't an asteroid. If you want your ideas of what is or isn't an asteroid to appear in the article, send it to MNRAS first. WilyD 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in the article reads "However, the discovery of the object 1996 PW, an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet, suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects.", with "an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet" specifically describing 1996 PW. This part is therefore simply not supported by the reference, because, per the reference, 1996 PW is not even known to be rocky (or an "asteroid" in Weissman & Levison's words). In sum, regardless of the specific definition of "asteroid" one prefers, the current phrasing is not supported by the reference.

The second part, "suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects" is meant to convey that 'the Oort cloud should [contain] a couple percent asteroids'. It is, however, not quite what the reference says. How you have said it is more in line with the reference, though, and more precise. --JorisvS (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, there's a phrasing problem here; 1996 PW's nature is unclear, and subsequent author(s) have interpreted it as an extinct comet nuclei. The Weissman & Levison paper is about the fraction of the Oort cloud that's composed of asteroids, but the phrasing does need to accomodate 1996 PW appropriately (or not mention it or something). WilyD 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is "with an asteroidal appearance" better than "without observed cometary activity"? Don't say because the source says so, because that is not true: Paragraph 2 reads 'However, physical observations have failed to detect any evidence for cometary activity in 1996 PW.'. Also, logic means that either 'research suggests that something is the case', or that 'something should be the case'. As for Category:Asteroids, it is a subcategory of Category:Minor planets, which is the more inclusive category (all asteroids are minor planets, but not vice versa). What is your rationale for including it alongside the other? --JorisvS (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is pretty clear on drawing the distinction between being asteroidal in appearance and being an extinct comet (as are the follow-up sources, such as Hicks et al.), as they don't mean the same thing. Try pushing beyond the second paragraph to the third paragraph, where they explicitly contrast "a comet that is no longer outgassing" and "an asteroid" (with two dynamical origins each). Pushing through the rest of the paper, you'll find it is concerned with how many asteroids end up in the Oort cloud. It's only four pages long. If you'd stop relying on your own intuition as to what should or shouldn't be an asteroid, following the literature wouldn't be so hard. I might agree that Oort cloud should be in minor planets (since it overlaps with nothing there but Asteroids as it stands), but one could probably dig up a paper by Alan Stern or someone on Pluto-analogues in the Oort cloud. There are some double-categorying in the area (e.g., Asteroids is in Category:Bodies of the Solar System and the daughter Category:Minor planets), which might be reflective of terminology problems and/or use of obsolete terms (or as yet unsettled terms), I'm not sure. WilyD 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure they talk about how many asteroids end up in the Oort cloud (I've read it). However, those sentences are not specifically about 1996 PW, whereas the one I'm talking about is. I'm only trying to follow the source as truthfully as possible. I'm asking you how your phrasing about 1996 PW is better than mine considering what the reference says. I'm no longer talking about what are most commonly considered asteroids or not, because while discussing this it turned out not to be relevant here at all. Note that Pluto is also a minor planet (it has for example the minor-planet number 134340). Sometimes categories are added somewhat haphazardly and a category a parent category that is also a parent category of another of its parent categories. WP:Categorization tells that pages should only be in the most specific relevant categories, which means that adding a parent category of a parent category is redundant. That specific case you highlighted is a clear example of that (and hence I've rectified the situation). --JorisvS (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 PW is a bit of a red herring, since it's nature is never determined (and actually, it's former membership in the Oort cloud is just a probabilistic argument anyways). The context/paragraph in the article are pretty clear; they're about the composition of Oort cloud bodies, and the question is what fraction of the Oort cloud is cometary nuclei, and what fraction is asteroids. So you could remove the reference to 1996 PW, and just say "However, calculations of its formation have led to the expectation 1~2% of the bodies are asteroids, not cometary nuclei". Though I think it adds a bit of flow (and the article is pretty sparse as it is), so I don't particularly think that's a good idea. WilyD 10:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale for mentioning 1996 PW. Nevertheless, the phrase that directly follows its mention, which you changed to "with an asteroidal appearance", is not about the composition of Oort cloud objects in general at all, but specifically about the nature of 1996 PW. The composition of Oort cloud objects in general is handled after that phrase. The reference talks specifically about the nature of 1996 PW in the second paragraph saying 'However, physical observations have failed to detect any evidence for cometary activity in 1996 PW.', which means that "without observed cometary activity" is most true to the reference. --JorisvS (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the source closely and object only using arguments that are actually based on facts. You'll then see I'm not pushing my own interpretation at all. --JorisvS (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, read the paper. 1996 PW looked like an asteroid. It was followed up (by other groups, or perhaps Weissman in another paper? or even Levison did observational stuff in those days?) to look for cometary activity. Which lead Weissman and Levison to calculate a) the fraction of Oort cloud objects that they expect to be asteroids (1~2%), and whether 1996 PW is such an asteroid (50-50). Merely not being outgassing on it's own is uninteresting, most cometary nuclei aren't outgassing, because they're extinct, or because they're far from the Sun. Again, read Weissman and Levison, the whole thing. The repeat the phrase "although asteroidal in appearance, it has a comet-like orbit", it's quite clear that the asteroidal appearance is what's important (and that being asteroidal in appearance is very different from merely not displaying cometary activity). If the fact that follow-up observations were made is too confusing, this more modern reference ddraws the distinction more clearly. WilyD 10:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In what aspect is "asteroidal in appearance" supposed to be different from not displaying cometary activity (which can only happen close to the Sun)? --JorisvS (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A cheese sandwich does not look like an asteroid, none the less, it does not display cometary activity. More importantly, Extinct comets are comets that don't display cometary activity. There are a lot more considerations; which depend on the thermal history of the body and so on. Again, I recommend you read the source you keep citing, it's quite clear that the important thing is that it looks like an asteroid but orbits like a comet, which motivates the consideration. WilyD 10:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 PW also looked/-s like an extinct comet (in fact, follow-up research suggests that it is one). At that distance the only way to distinguish a(n oversized) cheese sandwich from an asteroid is its spectrum. Without a spectrum a cheese sandwich does look like an asteroid. 1996 PW's spectrum is type D, typical of type-D asteroids and extinct comets. The only thing that really made it 'look like an asteroid' was the lack of cometary activity, which at the time was unexpected for an object in such an orbit. --JorisvS (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is your idea, not found in the paper. The fact that it looked like an asteroid led Weissman and Levison to consider the question of how many asteroids are in the Oort cloud. The fact that it also looked like an extinct comet did not lead Weissman and Levison to consider how many asteroids are in the Oort cloud. The fact that it doesn't have a coma made the asteroidal interpretation more plausible (or at least, if someone looked and found a coma, they'd have concluded it was a mostly extinct comet), but isn't why Weissman and Levison suggested the Oort cloud should be a couple percent asteroids. With modern hindsight, it reasonable to conclude you shouldn't think about icy asteroids (as the Shannon et al. paper argues), but that's your idea, not Weissman et al.'s. If they believed then that you can't distinguish D-type asteroids from extinct comets, they wouldn't have done their follow-up observations (e.g., the Hicks paper). The Weissman paper is quite clear that the asteroidal appearance is why the consider the idea, not merely the lack of coma. Even if it turns out that calling D-type asteroids is a mistake, we can't send that information back to 1997 to motivate W&L. WilyD 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question of what is supposed to be the difference. They knew full well that 1996 PW could turn out to be an extinct comet, but they wanted to figure out the probability that it wasn't one. If 1996 PW could (have) be(en) an asteroid, what is 'icy asteroids' supposed to mean? --JorisvS (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you read the Weissman and Levison paper, you'll find the answer to your question: they define asteroids as objects that formed at less than 5.2 au from the Sun. Now, I wouldn't do that, but for the purposes of the article, it's good enough, I guess (admittedly the article is not great, but one step at a time). The more recent paper uses icy/iceless distinction, and gets a similar (though sightly higher) rate. As far whether there's even a distinction between an extinct comet and a D-type asteroid, my guess is no, but again, my own ideas don't make it into the article until after I publish them, and it's irrelevant to the question at hand. The sentence says "Observations of 1996 PW found that it looks like an asteroid, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids". This statement is true, because that observation prompted that research". The sentence "Observations of 1996 PW found that it didn't have a coma, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids" is false, because that observation did not prompt the research. It is true that it doesn't have a (detected) coma, but that isn't what prompted them to think about asteroids in the Oort cloud. It's also true that it looks like an extinct comet nucleus, but that isn't what prompted them to think about asteroids in the Oort cloud. WilyD 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for their definition of 'asteroid', nor whether there is a difference between D-type asteroids and extinct comets. I'll answer it: 'Looks like an asteroid' is not an observation, but an interpretation of an observation: One can't look and see that 'it looks like an asteroid', one can see something and interpret that as 'it looks like an asteroid'. When another step is inserted, it would be okay; the first step could then be left implicit: "Observations of 1996 PW (found that it didn't have a coma and) were interpreted as asteroidal in appearance, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids". However, phrasing it this way is rather clumsy and the current sentence in the article is better anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's still wrong. Again, read the papers. 1996 PW has the colours of a D-type asteroid (within the observational errors & whatnot). That's what makes it look like an asteroid. Not having a coma doesn't make you look like an asteroid (e.g., cheese sandwiches). "Looks like" is somewhat imprecision language, but Weissman is expressing his ideas, not yours. WilyD 14:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the spectrum, not the coma (though the article doesn't say what made them interpret it as 'asteroidal in appearance'). The core of what I've said is not affected: 'Looks like an asteroid' is an interpretation regardless and the current phrasing is also better regardless. --JorisvS (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Mid vowels in a dialect of Bavarian

Hello. Do you know which paper describes the /ø - œ - ɶ/ distinction in the Amstetten dialect of Bavarian? I think I read it once, but don't remember the title anymore. Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got the answer: it's The Sounds of the World's Languages, pages 289 and 290. Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, that can be right. This is my little search:

The mention at vowel height is uncited. Googling gives this, but its abstract is of little help. This mentions that that study of the Amstetten dialect is quoted by Ladefoged and Maddieson[29] and compares it to a certain Danish dialect. --JorisvS (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that and what is written in the SOWL will do. Thanks! Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 8 November

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sunwar people 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:

• The '''Sunwars''' or '''Sunuwars''' ([[Nepali language|Nepali]]: [[:ne:सुनुवार जाति|सुनुवार जाति]]" are one of the indigenous peoples of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Enceladus

Hi, you recently removed my {{Clarify}} on Enceladus without clarifying the text. Although I agree that the sentence becomes clear later in the article, I don't agree that eventual clarity justifies an ambiguous sentences in the article's lead paragraph. I would encourage you to rephrase that sentence rather than pretending it doesn't need clarification. Cheers, 71.63.4.110 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought it would have to be expanded significantly, which would not be appropriate for the lead section. I now see that it could be made more specific without lengthening it, though it may not need to be mentioned in the lead at all. I'm now going to take a crack at it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Deferring discussion of the E ring to the second paragraph works well. 71.63.4.110 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with ATK

I am attempting to make some COI edits at ATK. I left the marked-up copy in the talk page. Would you be willing to look at what I did and approve it? Thanks! Singaporebobby (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, really, and my only edits to that article have been minor copyedits. What I've been able to gauge looks pretty good. If no one answer on the talk page, you could try being bold, note in your edit summaryy our potential COI and that you've already posted on the talk page, and look if anyone responds. If not, everything should be good. --JorisvS (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 UM33

More information could be added perhaps with the help of fr:2014 UM33. Regards.--Io Herodotus (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is little there, and everything can be found using the references already in the table. I've added them. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nagaland

Would appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Nagaland#Forgetting_about_World_War_II. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Quantum vacuum plasma thruster

Dear JorisvS, I changed your recent post of 22:51 24 November 2014 on the page "Quantum vacuum plasma thruster" back to the one before, because the work using quantum field theory was not performed by Brady et al. If you look at the link for the reference and download the paper you will see that the author has no affiliation with Brady et al. or NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.17 (talk)

The sentence was confusing. The way I phrased it was better, but only the author of the paper is the one who should be mentioned (and I thought that sentence said that that was Brady). --JorisvS (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

List of missions to minor planets

Just to let you know I have again reverted your blanking of List of missions to minor planets. Although I agree there is some duplication of content between the two pages, your solution of simply blanking one of them, with no discussion beforehand, is completely unacceptable. There is no consensus for this action to take place so I have reverted it under WP:BRD until such a time as you have held a discussion in an appropriate place and established that there is support for your solution. I do not believe it is the correct solution, the pages may have similar content but the Missions article concentrates on the spacecraft while the other page is written from an astronomical perspective, concentrating on the asteroids. Additionally the Missions article is part of a series of articles and uses a common and established format, while the other one does not. Either way this is not a change which can be taken unilaterally and I do not expect to see the page blanked again until a discussion has taken place. --W. D. Graham 11:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So add it to the other page. What's the point of keeping a second list that lists the same objects in the same way? --JorisvS (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't list them in the same way though - List of minor planets and comets visited by spacecraft is about the asteroids while List of missions to minor planets is about the spacecraft and their missions. Also, since missions is part of a series (along with List of missions to the Moon, List of missions to Mars, etc) surely it would be more logical to merge List of minor planets and comets visited by spacecraft into List of missions to minor planets and List of missions to comets. --W. D. Graham 11:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be to split the list of minor planets and comets. You make a case for keeping the list of missions. I have improved the list to focus a bit more on the missions themselves, multiple entries per mission are not necessary for sorting purposes. --JorisvS (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a bug in the sorting script that caused problems with rowspan in sortable tables. I didn't realise that it had been fixed but it seems to work now so thanks for doing that. --W. D. Graham 12:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alessandro57 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. You reverted me and I reverted you, with a seemingly good explanation, and then you reverted me again. I was already going to the talk, so a message like this is really just overdoing it. A normal message beginning a discussion here would be quite fine. --JorisvS (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Can you move The Man Who Sold the World (song) to The Man Who Sold the World? Because the title track rather than the album of the same name. 183.171.183.7 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it can refer to both, I've converted it into a disambiguation page. --JorisvS (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reactionless drive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motion. 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) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

mardi

[maʁdi] or [maʁd͡zi]? 138.229.26.26 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The former, but there is a palatal-fricative off-glide at the end (giving [maʁdiʝ]), which is quite common in French. --JorisvS (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

last obs

Hi. My edits that you're reverting are reintroducing CS1 date errors onto those pages. There's got to be a better place to put this "last obs" information.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you'd examine them, you'd see that they don't. I'm just fixing how to put in "last obs" without such an error and the most convenient way to do that is use the revert button and change whatever has to be changed. --JorisvS (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'll leave you to it, then!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 22:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not actively looking for them, but if I see someone fixing these and there is a better way, I change it. I hope this little thing has helped you make this best change yourself. --JorisvS (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going through WikiProject Astronomy cleanup listing, fyi. And I'm not sure how destroying the |date= field to save the "last obs" information is "better" than destroying the "last obs" info. Keep both. Here's how: instead of just renaming |date= to |type=, first copy the erroneous "date=2010-10-31 last obs" to |type=, then copy the date portion of it back to |date= so you end up with |date=2010-10-31 |type=2010-10-31 last obs. Cool?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless the date is not meaningful in the way that wiki expects it to be. doesn't belong in the date field to begin with.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 23:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

With JPL there is not really a "date", only the date of last obs and an accessdate, so copying the same date into a date parameter does not makes much sense. --JorisvS (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, here's another relevant and productive discussion I was having.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 06:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. There is some logic to that. A problem would be that the template generates an error if the epoch lies in the future, which commonly happens at JPL. --JorisvS (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. I invite you to this discussion about changes to Help:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 11:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

More of my gassing

I was about to write this on the Gas giant RM but thought to raise things with you first. After giving it some thought my issues aren't so much with the present move idea. Unlike article content I do not have a great problem with "Gas giant" being a misnomer. It is primarily composed of Hydrogen and the even gassier Helium. Ice Giant, however, seems to me to be a fallacious categorisation. On the basis that in earth like orbits or less in the case of planets with thick atmospheres, H2O and methane are decidely non-icy. Obviously as you seem to be an editor who is keen to develop the articles you can decide how to develop content. I think that either base title, Gas giant or Giant planet, would serve well as article bases. At present My only thought regarding the development of a separate Gas giant article would be to balance what I'd consider to be the fallacy of the Ice giant content. I'd favour the view that this content could be merged into either of the other article titles. As mentioned Gas giant is the commonly used term. The planets that, in our solar system, as labled Ice giants are primarily made of gas. From a brief look they are sometimes considered as a subset of Gas Giants and with this as being the commonly used term. However, in the context of Wikipedia edit wars i see this as a potential argument for using the less commonly used "Giant planet". gregkaye ✍♪ 14:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The ice giants (Uranus and Neptune) are composed mainly of 'ices', i.e. volatile materials such as water, methane, ammonia, etc.. They do have a substantial hydrogen–helium ('gas') atmosphere, but unlike the true gas giants, they are not composed mainly of it. Because of this compositional difference, they are more and more separated into distinct categories (traditionally, from before the realization that they are compositionally quite distinct, no difference was made and 'gas giant' could also refer to all four). Nonetheless, all four are giant planets. "Giant planets" is a category based on mass, whereas "ice giant" vs. "gas giant" is one based on composition (and both are a subset of "giant planet"). --JorisvS (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"and can" grammar

Hello,

Regarding this revert, how exactly is "Some orbit stars and can, like planets, have eccentric orbits." grammatical?

and is a conjunction, hence it needs to connect two words or sentences.

If it said "Some orbit stars and some non-orbit stars" it would make sense, as it would connect two nouns. If it said "Some orbit stars have property X and can, like planets, have eccentric orbits", it would also make sense, because the and would connect two sub-sentences.

SCriBu (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some [brown dwarfs] orbit stars and [some] can(, like planets,) have eccentric orbits. "Some" is the subject, "orbit" is the verb, and "stars" is the object of the first phrase, which is then connected to a second phrase using "and". Arguably, it better to give "can" an explicit subject ("they") or rephrase it at bit further (like I've done), because of those that orbit stars only some can have eccentric orbits. In any case, removing "and" would clash two phrases without a conjunction. --JorisvS (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Caroline Gennez

Hello. How would you pronounce her first name? Current transcription is definitely wrong, because the first name doesn't have indicated stress. I bet it is [kaːroːˈlɪn] or [kaːroːˈlin]. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 13:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The most common pronunciation of the <a> is ~[a], which is phonemically /ɑ/, not /aː/, even though the spelling would suggest the latter, not the former phoneme (which is a rather common phenomenon). The formally 'best' pronunciation would be your latter, [kaːroːˈlin]. The last name is not Dutch, so its French pronunciation seems right. --JorisvS (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The problem is that we don't have [a] on Help:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans. Since phonemically it is /ɑ/, we should use that symbol. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that it uses phonetic brackets, not phonemic slashes. --JorisvS (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you do anything about Jai1971?

As you noticed, he keeps trying to add that information in the articles. I started a post at the teahouse here but I don't know of much else to do. Also, in that teahouse post I showed some evidences of his bullshit. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't do much, but I've left my two cents there. --JorisvS (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback on "scarcity" as applied to Asteroid mining

Hello, JorisvS. You have new messages at Asteroid mining's talk page.
Message added 13:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there, JorisvS. I've kicked off a BRD discussion on the effort to get this article to more correctly reflect what the term scarcity means, so that we use it correctly in that article, the same way it is used in the standard economic literature. I'll say more over there later today; but wanted to let you know it was started, and invite you over to join the conversation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

neither

[ˈnaɪ̯ðɚ], [ˈnaɪ̯d̪ɚ] or [ˈnaɪ̯d̪͡ðɚ]? 162.247.121.94 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Very clearly the first one. --JorisvS (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

J, T, & K - please have a fresh look at Etruscan language article - isolate?

Hitting all three of you with the same msg - just recently had a look at this article, and it is mixing 'language isolate' (which everything I've ever known about it via historical sources says it is) with very recent published theories that it no longer is, or is confusingly seemingly stating it no longer is. Please look at the Classification section and correct or re-word it to make it more clear. Also, a couple of new studies has never in my field = "majority consensus opinion." Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Describing it as being the consensus is, I think, over the top. Maybe "promising" if it has been positively received by multiple specialists. It would also be nice to include critics, if possible. Please, go ahead and reword it. --JorisvS (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year JorisvS!

Happy New Year!

JorisvS,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Serendi^podous 15:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Edit warring

You and Earizu appear to be "edit warring" over these articles:

• Italian language - a comma, 4 reverts
• Marco Enrico Bossi - a comma and dashes, 5 reverts
• Somatosensory system - choice of words, 5 reverts

Only in the last case does there seem to be any substantive issue.

This type of activity clutters the edit history of articles and creates more work for recent changes patrollers. Normally editors taking part in such "wars" are asked to discuss on the article talk page, then take to dispute resolution and so on: but in this case it hardly seems worthwhile. I would recommend that you both simply stop now. Posting similarly to the other editor: Noyster (talk), 11:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell him that. He has been reverting me without any explanation, one even plainly against the MoS. I tried to get a response on his talk page to no avail. Reverting me are the only edits he's making, none of which improve those articles. I hope you can get him to stop, because I haven't. --JorisvS (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ural–Altaic languages

Our edit-warrior is back. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturn

Please don't make edits which compromise the quality of articles. --John (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You got to be kidding me. I fixed the mistake in "fixing" the caps in the blockquote and just restored the two non-quoted instances that refer to the bodies, and which hence should be capitalized. --JorisvS (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in: AWB Violation/ Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Can you please help me? Arianewiki1 is being insistent. I don't want to be the only one arguing with him and reverting his changes. I don't want that to turn into a huge discussion because of one user who is against it. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 17:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been away less than half a day and this discussion has exploded. I don't understand his harsh reaction to you. --JorisvS (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@ JoricS

Perhaps this might help, because he deleted this on Tetra quark and attacks me on mine User_talk:Arianewiki1. Bragging about this doesn't help, either.

You said "I'd say that making occasional mistakes is natural, whether one is using AWB or not. The important thing is the cooperative spirit so that these mistakes are then fixed." --JorisvS (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My reply;

":Actually JorisvS your wrong. Evidence points to the likelihood Tetra quark did this deliberately, else why was he so desperate to close down the argument the moment this might be arbitrated?"

As for "cooperative spirit", then explain this provocation on my User_talk:Arianewiki1 page

"Also, is it that difficult to notice that there was a consensus? Read everything above my comment "@Dondervogel 2: Fine, I guess that's the final decision then". It was a simple decision. You can't make everyone bow to your opinion. You're a huge minority. Also, the long messages you post make you look extremely arrogant. Stop trying to say you didn't attack me personally. It is ok to admit you're not 100% right all the time. By the way, consider this message as a constructive criticism, not an attack."

Clearly the evidence in front of you shows you viewpoint is rather implausible. Pity. [Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)] --Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen that. But what the hell are you talking about?? I can find nothing provocative on your talk page. I can find nothing to indicate he would be making errors deliberately. As for not giving more time to the discussion, that's an understandable decision based on what had been said up to that point, as I've said here. Bragging?? What are you talking about? --JorisvS (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply here, and I can only assume you have confusingly taking this personally. The problem with here is that the method of reaching consensus was violated, because of the insufficient time to review. I've have again and again clearly stated that I have issues with the rate in which this conclusion was enacted. It has nothing to do with the unfair accusation: "You can't make everyone bow to your opinion." I stated my opinion, in the view of finding the balance of consensus. Why can you not agree with that? (Nothing else is said of the complaint to the here To be fair, the points of the changes needed actually did partially agree with the proposition I stated them with examples. The violation is to do with the time it took to gain consensus', which this editor did with such deliberate intent to avoid, but now this is perfectly fine. Why?

I also fail to see YOUR hostility towards me, especially made clear with the recent Alpha Centauri edits? Why?

In the end, I will discuss anything about astronomy, but I will not be lied about things I haven't said nor the implication of being manipulated by another User. My complaint is completely justified, because this User was deliberately avoided the consequences of his actions, knowing full well it was controversial and confrontational. He was warned of WP:GF, but ignored it. He was warned not to take action to quickly using AWB . He knew of the power of AWB , and was desperately out to use it. He did so to absolutely deadly effect. Q. What would have happen if this were a more essential execution of AWB .Now somehow after all this, the guy's now the downtrodden victim. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you should take a break from Wikipedia for today. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 23:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't get too cocky, sunshine. This issue has yet to be finally resolved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I think you're overreacting to the things that have happened. I haven't been lying to you, manipulating anyone, nor making unfair accusations ("You can't make everyone bow to your opinion." is not mine). As for Tetra quark, it would have been sufficient to ask him to stop and allow more time. This would also have been a lot less fuss for everyone involved. You're the one who's interpreting his behavior as being deliberate. This whole issue would still become a lot simpler by simply assuming good faith and only talking about the edits. --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@ JorisvS Firstly. I am really shocked in you saying "I haven't been lying to you." You haven't, and if I've left that impression, I am honestly very sorry. The issue is/was with Tetra quark never you. I also thank you for your honest appraisals, and agree so of the actions were rather unfortunate. (It hard to keep your cool when someone is pushing all your buttons.) I.e. "I think you should take a break from Wikipedia for today." I'm sorry you got caught in the crossfire here.

The issue has been resolved [30] , probably for the best, as the power of AWB can be used to advantage. His mistake was to implement far too quickly, then attempted to cover his tracks to avid scrutiny.[31] assuming good faith is a great start, but you also need transparent and open about what you do or are attempting to do. Tetra quark never bother to do that at all.

Editors using it, like Tetra quark here, can appear as superior to the normal editor who edits a page at a time. I'll be making some suggesting towards more safeguards for its use. I.e. 5000 edits to allow access and better mentorship.. Maybe Tetra quark will get access to this resource when he gets more experience.

I may have made several 'enemies' by doing this, mainly by exposing my position in the way I did, but the procedures of editing has always been the issue, which the WP:DRN specifically addresses.

This should end the matter. Best wishes and good editing! :) Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. You said to me "In the end, I will discuss anything about astronomy, but I will not be lied about things I haven't said nor the implication of being manipulated by another User.". How else should I have interpreted this than you saying I'm lying? If some of these things you said to me were, in fact, not directed at me, I hope that next time you'll try to make it more clear 1) which things are responses, 2) to what they are responses (and link to them if not said here), and 3) to whom you're saying what. That should help prevent a lot of confusion and help to focus the discussion(s). --JorisvS (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

talk

Can I at least have some peace and freedom in my own f----- talk page? Thank you.

Anyway, I've moved some stuff to the bin Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 17:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Try to use these comments constructively, instead of trying to cover them so you are not confronted with them. In the long run you'll be better off. --JorisvS (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Uranus's really correct? I've always learned that you omit that last s in those cases Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

+' is used for plural nouns that end in -s, +'s for singular nouns (and plurals that do not end in -s). Uranus is, of course, singular, hence +'s. The +'s can, in fact, be heard: Uranus's is pronounced like Uranusses. This all said, English isn't homogeneous and +' can also be found with singular nouns ending in -s. The most common +' for singulars is with biblical characters. +'s is more common else. In all +' isn't wrong, but +'s is better. --JorisvS (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

e.g. comma and MOS

Hello. You reverted my addition of commas after 'e.g.'s, stating that it is not Wik's MOS. True, but in Wikipedia's MOS, I could find no discussion of the issue. How-ever, I did find this: "In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country..." and other examples without the comma. So it seems it is one of the variable things. Since I was reverting to an original use with commas, I don't see why it shouldn't be with commas. 00:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is variable, but "e.g." is a bit preferred, with most instances being without a comma. Usually, there is also no pause when spoken aloud, and if there is, I tend to write it out: "for example, ..." because that is then typically better. --JorisvS (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Puck

I believe it is better to leave a low quality image if the purpose is to fill that annoying gap, but ok Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 15:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just that you're annoyed by it. It's as simple as not letting it bother you. In the summer, Charon will be added, though also possibly other moons of Pluto, depending on the quality of the images. --JorisvS (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi JorisvS, I'd like to urge you to be more considered and respectful in your interactions. I also would like you to reconsider your revert and properly revise the citation in question. Since I a plan to stay here for a long time, I count on good cooperation with all other editors. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hydrogen and helium in the ice giants

First off, thanks for the copyediting of my recent large edits!

I removed your inclusions of helium with the mentions of hydrogen in ice giant. In those cases, the source was only referring to hydrogen. Care should be used when mentioning those gasses since the ratios vary quite a bit depending on what you're measuring. While heavier than helium might be a defining feature of ice giant constituents, even gas giants have a relatively small amounts. This probably should be more clear for the reader and I'll do some digging for sources touching on this tomorrow, but I was wondering how much you think we should clarify this for the reader in the ice giant article as opposed to the others. — daidalos^.xyz 19:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gas giants should roughly have the primordial amount, the same as the Sun. Do you have a source that says that the gas giants are depleted in helium and why? Note that the compositions in the infoboxes are their atmospheric compositions and by volume percent (not mass percent). Looking at the body of the Jupiter article, it says "Thus, the atmosphere is approximately 75% hydrogen and 24% helium by mass, with the remaining one percent of the mass consisting of other elements. The interior contains denser materials, such that the distribution is roughly 71% hydrogen, 24% helium and 5% other elements by mass.". Saturn's atmosphere is notably depleted in helium, but its bulk composition is roughly the same. --JorisvS (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ice giant

Yes, they are. I checked the reference. The paper is about the atmosphere of the ice giants. Also, the 20% hydrogen it mentions refer to the mass of the planets.

"While Uranus and Neptune also possess hydrogen envelopes, the envelopes are much smaller, accounting for less than 20% of the planet’s masses and never making the transition to metallic hydrogen (Guillot 2005)"

Last but not least, every source on the internet, including the Wikipedia article itself, says Uranus is composed of 83% hydrogen. In my opinion the lead of ice giant is too misleading Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"The 20% hydrogen it mentions refer to the mass of the planets": yes, a relatively small amount of hydrogen (and helium). As for the "83% hydrogen" in the Uranus article, that's its atmosphere. --JorisvS (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that Hydrogen is a much lighter element, so although it is responsible for 20% of the mass, it represents most of the volume. Anyway, I think we should make the ice giants article more clear. We should add that it's 20% in mass Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be made more clear. I've improved its lead. The difference in composition by mass is what makes the crucial difference. Even if the interior of Uranus needs four layers and that of Neptune three layers to be modeled, their classification would not change because their bulk composition is what matters for that. --JorisvS (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

2004 XR190

I don't agree with this revert: If we use Brown's list as a source in the lede (as does the linked list of possible DPs), we have to quote him correctly; and the JPL search can't claim to be a list of all "possible DP's", neither DP-ness nor size is determined by magnitude alone.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So what would be the added value of parroting his terminology? It is not normal English to have 'likely' as more likely than 'probable' and all in the list are possibly DPs, just with different likelihoods. Moreover, it is normal to paraphrase sources. --JorisvS (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is okay, but replacing "likely" by "possible" is a significant weakening, which makes the lede's sentence less informative. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How? By using terminology that the average English speaker (an hence WP reader) does not distinguish and therefore does not read as intended? --JorisvS (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm no English native speaker, but to me "likely" implies a high probability and "possible" a potentially lower one, just as intended by Brown. (This is unrelated to the "likely" vs. "probable" distinction, which may indeed be problematic linguistically, as you say.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is true that "likely" generally implies a higher probability than "possible". However, "possible" can also mean basically anything between 0 and 100% except the end points. That's why the list uses "possible". In the article it is unnecessary to distinguish multiple categories of likelihood. --JorisvS (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "possible" is logically correct, but it's less informative for 2004 XR190's lede than "likely" since it doesn't imply a high probability. Checking the articles of some other DP candidates, it also seems to be common practice to quote Brown's actual category in the lede, rather than reduce it to "possible DP". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (Thanks for fixing my editing error at the Rhea article, BTW.)

It used to, yes, but since the list was moved to "possible", it has no longer been followed strictly. An example that doesn't follow Brown's categories (and their names) is 120347 Salacia with "probably", yet it is (now) listed as "nearly certainly" by Brown, though I think it stems from the time it was still listed as "highly likely". However, do "probable" or "likely" not imply a higher probability than there really is (out of context, that is: within the context of Brown's list it's fine)? --JorisvS (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kannada language 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:

• Censusindia.gov.in |date= |accessdate=12 February 2013}}</ref>, who are called [[Kannadiga]]s ({{IAST|''Kannaḍigaru''}}, Kannada is one of the 40 [[List of languages by number of native speakers|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The TNOs image

Larry McNish at RASC has done an update of the TNOs image. Maybe we should do an adaptation of it? Serendi^podous 23:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ours is rather outdated. From the looks of it, Eris should still be a bit smaller (the same size as Pluto). --JorisvS (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't have the tools to do it myself. Serendi^podous 11:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I don't have any tools at my disposal that you don't, so we should find someone who can. Maybe WilyD, he has been very active at the Kuiper belt imagery? --JorisvS (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ram's horns.

The Singaporeans do tend to put the stress mark on the final syllable. Thank you. Gcjdavid (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

At present, stress is not even mentioned at Singapore English. It is already tagged for a reference. Find one that says that. --JorisvS (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He's clearly confusing stress with high tone on the last syllable. Check his recent edit on close-mid back unrounded vowel, which I partially reverted. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 13:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 February

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 Malayalam page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sun

Please give me a bit of space while I work on this section. I'm getting edit conflicts. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I'm trying to clean it up, which you should like. Because you're really working on it, unlike me, let me suggest you try to change a bit more per edit and use then also use the show preview button. You can then more likely see if you'll be accidentally changing something you shouldn't and whether you'd be getting an edit conflict. Then it is easier to work around those edit conflicts. This way we can both make our improvements to it. --JorisvS (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, and I know, lots of edits, but some of my changes have involved moving blocks of material around, and I sometimes need to makes sure that the panorama looks right and, also, that I don't loose my edits. I do, however, very much appreciate your looking things over and making needed corrections. Okay, again, thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If you move stuff around, you should definitely use a single edit (to the entire page), unlike, for example, this. The same technique will then allow you to see that everything happens as you want it to. --JorisvS (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the editing window showing the actual source code is often difficult to navigate when editing the entire page. There are lots of formatting statements, figures, captions, etc. So, it ends up being easier to edit a specific section, cut text, save, then open another section for editing, paste, etc. My goal, in all of this, has been to make this article better, and I hope you can see some improvement. Thanks, again, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You could also use your browser's search function for that. I'm not questioning your motives, and the article is improving, I'm just trying to help us both do what we can. --JorisvS (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've told Isambard Kingdom to do more changes in one single edit dozens of times in the past. Don't bother telling him the same thing. Just an advice Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Tetra, I know you have complained to John several times. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I regularly end up doing several consecutive edits myself, so I understand how it can go. Nevertheless, if one's trying to really edit a page, it can be helpful to try to do more in one edit. --JorisvS (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Over the next few days, I will work on the second half of the magnetic-field-activity section. As with many Wikiarticles, there is a mishmash of material, assembled from many different editors adding small pieces of information here and there. Most of this is fine, but on a larger scale someone needs to make sure that all the relevant material is in place and that it presented in a logical and consistent way. Not easy to get there, but that is life. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite right about that! Personally, I'm usually doing the copyediting or adding those pieces of information. I'm glad someone has taken up this tedious work. It's good someone is doing it! --JorisvS (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to be a negative Nancy,^{[sorry, Nancies]} but Sun is already a WP:Featured article. Why the vigorous attention recently? Is it, or do y'all think it could be, a candidate for demotion? I'm just curious—no implied direction here, but there are plenty of articles to go around in the meantime.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on FA status. I do know, however, that the article could be improved. I know that the article is important, and, therefore, worthy of more scrutiny and editing (not less) than other less important articles. Ans, then, I had some energy to devote to the subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Koreanic languages

Please don't add the mention 'Koreanic languages' in the Korean language infobox. Because Koreanic languages are a proposal language family. People who haven't got a knowledge on linguistics could believe that the languages are a widely recognised language family, not just a proposal. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So why don't you actually explain it, rather than only keep claiming it, something contrary to what is said in the relevant articles? --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the papers which explain about relationship with ancient languages which were spoken in Korea and 'contemporary' Korean language is mostly written in Korean. If you can speak Korean, I can explain it, but I know that you can't speak the language. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense, why can't you explain it to me? That is, without referring to papers, something I'd ask you to do whether they're in English, Korean or any other language. --JorisvS (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

한국어의 계통 연구 (Research about relationship with Korean and other languages) (If want to read it, you must pay 5 kilo South Korean won for this paper.) --117.53.77.84 (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to read anything, in any language, for you to make your point. Say what you think I need to know, or else this is just a waste of time. --JorisvS (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to say that relationship between ancient languages which were spoken in Korea and 'contemporary' Korean is unconfirmed. It's still researching by linguistic and the Korean studies scholars. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comma after i.e.

Five of six style guides recommend comma after "i.e.": [32].

Why are you removing them, as in [33]? --Steve (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Because they're not ubiquitous, not required for anything, slightly interrupt the flow of the text with a small pause, and are more common without than with on Wikipedia, also in the MOS. --JorisvS (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you were saying the sentence out loud, you would leave a small pause after "i.e.", just like you would leave a small pause after "that is" or "that is to say" (which of course is what "i.e." means). To signify that small spoken pause, you put in a comma.

When you say "interrupting the flow of text with a small pause", it sounds like a bad thing, but appropriate pauses are essential to communication. That's why they invented the comma in the first place. Commas are rarely required, but often helpful. They can make things easier to read and parse.

The MOS does not instruct us to avoid commas after "i.e.". It merely does so itself. (Or is there a section I missed?) There is a big difference. The difference is, the content of the MOS is extensively discussed and debated, while the style of the MOS is much much less so. All that you can infer is that one or two people decided to leave out the comma when originally writing that part of the MOS text, and nobody else thought to change it.

The Chicago Manual of Style OTOH does have explicit instructions on this topic:

"Expressions of the type that is are traditionally followed by a comma ... The abbreviations i.e. ("that is") and e.g. ("for example"), if used in formal writing, should be confined to parentheses or notes and followed by a comma."

I am not trying to convince you that commas are required. I am trying to convince you that commas are respectable. If you don't personally like the comma after i.e., that's fine, don't use it in text that you write yourself. But you should not go around indiscriminately erasing every comma after i.e. that you see ... unless the MOS explicitly says the comma is wrong, or unless it is near-universally acknowledged by English speakers to be wrong. Neither is the case.

It's true that some wikipedia articles use the commas and others don't. But this is not a problem, and it does not need fixing. And if it did need fixing, popular vote is the wrong way to declare which style is to be imposed. Your own personal style preference is an even wronger way. The right way is to lobby to add a section to the MOS that forbids the comma, and try to win over the linguists and grammar nerds who hang out at the MOS talk pages.

My own opinion is a bit different than Chicago Manual of Style. I think the comma is appropriate most of the time, but leaving it out is better in some contexts. That's why I especially disagree with your theory that the comma should be either ubiquitous or banned, but nowhere in between. --Steve (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, on this page of the MOS, "i.e." is used both with and without commas. --Steve (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rcats on Fission-fusion society

What exactly did I do wrong? This was treated by WP:Notifications as a revert, even though it wasn't (you kept R from modification but removed R from move).

The log shows that there was indeed a move, so I'm not sure why R from move wouldn't apply. I'm not aware of any consensus to remove R from move after other rcats have been added.

Did you mean to object to R from modification instead? If so, why? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because the only relevant R from is really that it is a modification of the correct title. That the article originally was at the incorrect title is not really relevant. --JorisvS (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by "relevan[ce]" in this context? Again, I am not aware of any consensus to remove {{R from move}} when adding other rcats. Should I take this to WT:Categorizing redirects to develop such a consensus? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just answer this: What's the point of that template, especially when there is another one? --JorisvS (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's to make visible the fact that the article was moved without requiring an extra click on the history tab, and also to allow tracking via Category:Redirects from moves. It is not a badge of shame about the "incorrectness" of the old title; the word "incorrect" is a bit misleading anyway, as consensus can change about naming conventions.

Do you think other RCAT guideline writers have been wrong about this all along? Please explain. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just asking for a good reason to keep it. Looks like that's settled. But what's with the weird ugly white box for two? --JorisvS (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

←

If I understand correctly, the box you're talking about is generated by {{this is a redirect}} a.k.a. {{redr}}. I didn't personally have a say in its design, nor do I have any strong feelings about it. If you want to discuss that, see WT:Categorizing redirects and/or Template talk:This is a redirect. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: The MediaWiki software here is currently configured to add {{R from move}} automatically when a page is moved; that's how it was added to the redirect in the first place. Should I still ask at WT:Categorizing redirects whether there are any conditions under which {{R from move}} should be removed? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No. What about adding "{{R from move}} and {{R from modification}}" separately? --JorisvS (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok as to the separate templates - but would you object if I did start such a discussion, just for my personal knowledge? I assume you are concerned about canvassing, which is assuredly not my intention here? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this point is settled. What you would like to do for yourself is your business, but I do not have to be involved. --JorisvS (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the [34] edit, um, correction should I say!? Anand2202 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of interwiki links

I have created articles «Глухой увулярный взрывной» (Voiceless uvular stop) and «Звонкий увулярный спирант» (Voiced uvular fricative) in Russian Wikipedia, but you have reverted language redirect. Why have you done that?Tzschoidheaought (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Tzschoidheaought (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Because since quite a while now such interwiki links are no longer handled by adding a link to Wikipedia pages, but by adding them to Wikidata. --JorisvS (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mars

What are you replacing the Tharsis image? You are saying. Thanks! --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 07:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not replacing that one, but have restored it. The discussion about the image is at Talk:Mars#Lead image. The reason for my revert(s) is in my edit summary. --JorisvS (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to small Solar System bodies

Why avoid the redirect? Per WP:NOPIPE, avoiding the piped link is preferable to avoiding the redirect. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It actually says nothing about this situation. It says things about the most efficient way of linking to an article and when there is an advantage in using a redirect. Using redirects has the advantage of telling when it is useful to make a spin-off article. However, in this case there is no chance of that ever occurring, because it is a simple matter of it being the plural. Now, it simply goes to the page directly, without displaying any pointless redirection notice. --JorisvS (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System (Sun)

Why did you remove the lead image when Huntster uploaded a new version of January 2015 image when I got here on Wikimedia Commons?

Here: List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System

Please, do not remove the lead image. Thanks. --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which change are you referring to exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

He's referring to this edit. I support the reversion. I also don't see why my having uploaded a larger version of his preferred image has any relevance in this situation. Jcpag2012, just because you uploaded an image does not mean you have the right to demand its inclusion in an article. If you seriously want to challenge this action, which I do not recommend, find consensus on that article's talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sun

Why do you changed to natural color image? If just help that, thanks. --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 01:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, please be specific about what change you are talking. I think you're referring to a similar change as the one you mean in the above section. Those two images were made at the same ultra-UV wavelight, so are far from in 'natural color'. --JorisvS (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

enquête

Hi, is this pronunciation [ˈɑ̃kʲæɪ̯t]? 162.247.120.161 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The stress is, like typical French, on the last syllable. The [k] is not particularly palatalized, but is more front than a prototypical velar (which is pretty normal for velars before front vowels). The nucleus of the diphthong is not as open as [æ], and does not even sound quite as open as [ɛ]. So [ɑ̃ˈk̟e̞ɪ̯t]. --JorisvS (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, maybe it's [ɑ̃ˈk̟ɛ̈ɪ̯t]? 198.99.30.186 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I can't say for certain, it does not sound centralized to me. --JorisvS (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.forvo.com/word/tête/

The Canadian pronunciation is [taɪ̯t] or [tæɪ̯t]? 162.247.120.161 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not the former. --JorisvS (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Artist impressions of the exoplanets

Why do you remove pictures from the infobox, when I used the Photoshop CS5 (3D computer graphics for artist's impression)?

• HD 40307 g
• HD 40307 b
• Tau Ceti f
• Tau Ceti e
• Mu Arae e

It is a meaningless, just okay. But it is not a meaningless for joke, just discuss me. Thanks. --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Though they're not the same as those images of general Celestia textures you uploaded, they're still not meaningful encyclopedic content. It 'looks nicer' is not a good reason. --JorisvS (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012, I agree with Joris on this. Please, stop adding "artist impression" images to articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jcpag2012: Despite this, now you're just continuing to add these meaningless artist's impressions without any explanation? Why? --JorisvS (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.... --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 09:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jcpag2012: Is that seriously everything you have to say about it? --JorisvS (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, just delete my meaningless artist's impressions. Okay. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 06:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Romanian IPA Sounds

I recently edited the page by adding an example of a palatal nasal sound present in the Romanian language, but you got reverted. The sound certainly exists in the Romanian variant spoken in Transylvania, along with other sounds missing from the standard language. It's one of my first edits I do on Wikipedia, so if you are kind enough to explain the change, it would be really helpful in the future. Shaku91 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered you here. --JorisvS (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Consonant tables

Hi, could you tell me what's wrong with the edit I've done on Serbo-Croatian phonology and Polish phonology. Thanks. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your edit was that it was needlessly cody. However, note that I didn't just undo your edit, but also standardized its layout (to what is the most common and informative form), which has one sound per cell and clearly states the elements of a sound. --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see that now. However, I'd like to point out that my edit makes the tables look like the {{IPA consonant chart}}. I could make up templates to hide the code, but is it really necessary? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the one table. And it needs clarification which sounds are voiced and which voiceless. It does have the benefit of being a little more compact, which is an advantage for templates like that. Tables in the articles, however, should be as clear as possible. --JorisvS (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Votic language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatalization. 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) 09:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

neige

Hi, it's [nɐɪ̯ʒ] or [nɐɪ̯ʒᵊ]? 138.229.19.34 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The latter. --JorisvS (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[ɑ̃ˈsɐɛ̯tχ] or [ɑ̃ˈsˁɐɛ̯tχ] ? 138.229.19.34 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a [ˁ] or not. 138.229.19.34 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to hear, but I get the impression that the [s] is more tense than a plain one. True pharyngealization ([ˁ]) would sound different, though. Maybe it's epiglottalized, properly written [^ʜ]. Then again, I suspect that any epiglottalization is not limited to the [s] and the possible one one the [s] could actually be due to the nasalized vowel also being epiglottalized. --JorisvS (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The diphthong is really [ɐɛ̯]? 162.247.120.245 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian French vowels are really a pain in the ass, with all kinds of rare diphthongs. The nucleus does sound like [ɐ], though it's possible it's slightly fronted. The offglide may as well be [ɪ̯], I can't say for sure. --JorisvS (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

These two Quebec French pronunciation are different? [taɪ̯t] and [tæɪ̯t]? 162.247.120.245 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They're quite different! The distinct is something along those lines, yes. --JorisvS (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Mike Brown, the eccentric

Sometimes our articles make me laugh. I came across the following this morning:

"Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. ... Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown."

Poor Mike! — kwami (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's funny! :) --JorisvS (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On my most recent edit to Mars

Sorry if that had the appearance of a weak personal attack (calling you lazy); I just didn't like the fact that you were making a change of that sort without keeping the units used by a few hundred million people in the Western Hemisphere (plus some in the United Kingdom). That is all. If you want to respond to this, you can, but you don't have to. That is all. Dustin (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The international SI units are the international standard and, logically, it is the consensus that their use in astronomy (after all a scientific discipline) articles is required. The use of miles is optional, only to accomodate understanding for those who are too unfamiliar with SI units. I've occasionally seen them being removed elsewhere when they were alongside their km equivalents. Here, however, kilometers were missing altogether, which is, as I've explained, a no-go for astronomy articles (this point was, in fact, in the to-do list of the Mars article). I figured that if anyone felt it was important enough to keep the mile equivalents of those, s/he would simply add them again. It didn't quite go that way... --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990

Thanks for all the help, which enabled bringing the article to GA. I really appreciate it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I was wondering about the possibility of pushing it to FA, though it may be entirely possible that the best possible article on this topic cannot attain FA status, I'm not sure. It may nevertheless be worth a shot, if you wish. --JorisvS (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I may try it and see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

baleine

Hi, I've probably heard [bɐlæ̯ẽn], have you heard an extra-short [æ̯] ? 138.229.19.187 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but the (non-written) off-glide of the second syllable is far more pronounced. --JorisvS (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Plurals in phoneme tables

MOA features usually aren't used in the singular when used collectively. A language does not have "five plosive", it has five plosives. I believe plurals are more common for phoneme tables (though admittedly this has never been fully standardized). Something like "plosive and affricate" sounds especially clunky; at the least you should also change those to "or".

Arguably the same point can be made of POAs though (three bilabials, not "three bilabial"), but they are usually used as modifiers of the MOA: a language may have two bilabial plosives (and not "two plosive bilabials"). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In your examples, it is not used as referring to a feature, but as referring to specific consonants having that feature. Where it is used as a feature is, for example, in the "Features" sections of the phone articles, where, when referring to multiple consonants with the same feature, it would be correct to say that "their manner of articulation is plosive", not "their manner of articulation is plosives". I interpret the rows and columns in tables as representing features of individual consonants, not as a fancy way of listing consonants. --JorisvS (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Crap images of the exoplanets and meaningless "artist's impressions"

@JorisvS: Please stop putting crap in articles.

Here:

• HD 40307 g (crap image, using Photoshop)
• Kepler-5b (bad Celestia texture using Photoshop, copyvio)
• Mu Arae e (bad Celestia texture using Photoshop, copyvio)

Just delete my crap images and meaningless artist's impressions. Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking me to delete them? --JorisvS (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A general Celestia texture using Photoshop CS5, okay. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 05:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JorisvS. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 05:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: Don't put crap image on the article. Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 05:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Mailing me with just the above has no added value. Just answer the question and be serious, I don't appreciate being played around with. --JorisvS (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay! :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Joris, just ignore it. My opinion, having watched this editor for a while, is that there is an English language and general competency issue going on. I've tried to help him repeatedly on Commons and it simply gets ignored or twisted around. If it continues, I'm seriously considering blocking with WP:CIR as a rationale. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for informing me. I have noticed the same thing. On top, I think there is also an attitude issue. --JorisvS (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proper motion

@JorisvS:

Hi! Could you do me a great kindness and check my edit(s) on Proper motion, which I've made a fairly significant update. There is still many problems with this page, which is far too complicated for such a simple concept.

I'd appreciated some feedback in making further improvements.

Cheers

Note: Thanks for correcting my edit on Alpha Centauri, which I've misread. Sorry for the unnecessary revert.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think it looks better, and yes, you're right that it needs more work. I'll keep an eye on it to help you a bit. We could best discuss further improvements on its talk page, so that it's easier for others to chime in. --JorisvS (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

كيفك

• http://www.forvo.com/word/كيفك/#ar

Hello, this pronunciation is really "key-f***" ? 138.229.16.126 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha, to an English ear, yes. --JorisvS (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conscientiousness

I've removed a copyvio from the article added a few hours ago; I don't think any other edits by the IPs are copyvios but could you check please? —George8211 / T 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

honest

Hello, [ˈɒnɛst] is an incorrect pronunciation? 138.229.16.126 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

See wikt:honest for its correct pronunciation. --JorisvS (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[35] But the Canadian pronounce [ˈɒnɛst] here. 138.229.16.126 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No, they actually don't, you're just mishearing those. --JorisvS (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe [ˈɒnəst]? 138.229.16.126 (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The best transcriptions I can think of are: 1st [ˈɒnɪst] (Can), 2nd [ˈɑnəst] (US), 3rd [ˈɒnəst] (Can), but such transcriptions are still not 100% accurate: the [ə]s of the latter two are not identical. The unstressed vowel is reduced, with the exact realization depending somewhat on the speaker. --JorisvS (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[ˈdaɪət] or [ˈdaɪɛ̈t]? 138.229.16.126 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite straightforwardly the former. The /d/ in English is not modally voiced, and this one isn't either. It's rather voiceless with the glottis open as for modally voiced consonants, and so is still distinct from /t/. --JorisvS (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If I pronounce the word honest as [ˈɒnɛst], people will notice me? 198.99.29.213 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would you? Why would you do that if you can simply pronounce it with either with [ə]~[ɪ]? --JorisvS (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I always pronounce as [ˈɒnɪst], I meant if someone pronounce as [ˈɒnɛst], English-speakers will notice it? 198.99.29.213 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't judge for everyone, though it'll depend on how quickly it is said, I'd say. --JorisvS (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[ˈɒnɛst] doesn't exist really? 雞雞 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't judge all possible accents and there are definitely many second-language speakers that pronounce a [ɛ], although I doubt many of them would pronounce the [ɒ] like that. It would definitely be a marked pronunciation. --JorisvS (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think [ˈɒnɛ̈st] is correct. 198.99.29.213 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the latest (i.e. 8th) edition of Gimson's Pronunciation of English - Google Books should have a decent preview of it. It discusses the RP/GA schwa in the section 8.9.13. All of the qualities it mentions are phonetically central (one even somewhat more back), none are front. You can hear a rather front schwa in Scouse and (less commonly) Geordie (see Accents of English 2, page 376), as well as some non-native varieties, which may realize the schwa as [e ~ ɛ], when it is written ⟨e⟩ in the orthographical form. And a friendly advice: don't repeat the same thing over and over again without providing evidence for your claims. It's annoying. Peter238 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

SA dreadnought race

Hi Jorisv, my apologies for the revert, but I don't believe your change was grammatically accurate. Did you mean to change something else? Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but I now see I read it wrong. I saw the past participle and couldn't find a finite verb accompanying it, nor parse an adjectival meaning, and therefore figured that a past tense was intended. Maybe it was because I was tired, because now I understood it with its adjectival meaning just fine. --JorisvS (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries—I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed any other grammar errors! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

forest

I hear [ˈfɔɹɛstʃ]. 198.99.29.213 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[ˈfɔɻəstˢ]. The approximant is retroflex, the reduced vowel is roughly mid, and there is some fricative-like element after the plosive that sounds more like a fricative release, and not close to [ʃ]. --JorisvS (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

θ

Is there some American pronounce the word thing as [t̪ɪŋ]? 198.99.29.213 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[t̪ɪŋ] is incorrect? 198.99.29.213 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid belt

Hello JorisvS, Glad to make your acquaintance. I presume you must be one of the overseers for this topic??? Hey, I noticed that you removed my meteorite photo and made the comment, “…and how does a meteorite fragment inform readers about that?” I admit I just sort of slapped that in there without giving it much thought. It was late in the day, too. That’s no excuse, right? Anyway, instead of feeling disappointed that you did that, believe it or not, I am happy that you did. It caused me to think…sort of a stimulation for my mind to “reinvent the wheel.” Well, anyway, I woke up this morning with a new twist for a caption for that photo. As far as I know, it is an original term of mine that I have mentioned a few times in my writings. I have referred to meteorites as being asteroid DANDRUFF, which is very relevant to that particular point in the Wiki article. Well, during a collision, smaller asteroids/meteoroids which can eventually become METEORITES, flake off, if you will, just like dandruff ‘flakes’ off of someone’s scalp. (Just in case you’re wondering, I Googled “meteorites asteroid dandruff” and found no references. There was one about cosmic dandruff. So, my point is original.) The point that I would like to get over to the readers of that portion of that article is this: If asteroid ‘dandruff’ can makes its way all the way from outer space down to the Earth, why does the general consensus think that it is so inconceivable for an asteroid to do the very same??? It is food for thought, if you will. I simply want to awaken people to that fact. What they do with it after that is entirely up to them. Ironically, just before logging into Wikipedia this morning, I noticed a front-page Internet news story regarding an asteroid that might come dangerously close to our planet in October 2017!!! Finally, I am currently preparing to publish my 11-volume book series, of which I have made no mention of it on Wikipedia. It is already on KDP. I sort of quickly “threw” it on there just to start somewhere. Anyway, in the volume titled “Kiss my ASSTEROID,” I made mention that meteorites are the dandruff of asteroids. In the volume “OBLITERATION,” I mentioned a dream that I had regarding two asteroids colliding with one another, similar to the scene in the movie “Meteor,” a comet careened into an asteroid and it ended up heading towards Earth. Well, I hope I made my point clear. Please take a look at my caption revision and the text edit that I made, as well. I hope you feel that it is of value and will allow it to remain. If not, well, what can I say? Apparently, you’re the boss! Cheers and have a great day, GeoGozzGEOGOZZ (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, meteorites are fragments of asteroids and the asteroid belt is filled with asteroids, so of course they're related. And all NEOs have made their way from another place, presumably the asteroid belt, to their current Earth-crossing orbits. Nature does not distinguish between asteroids and meteoroids. That said, when the sections in question talk about very different things than meteorites, an image of a meteorite does not contribute anything to that section and hence should not be there. Also note that Wikipedia is not the place for promoting your original analogy between meteorites and dandruff. And you might want to try to learn to make your point with fewer words, because that helps to get your point across to other people. --JorisvS (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Table of Varieties in Gheg Page removed

Hi, Kwamikagami had removed long time ago the gheg / tosk variation table ? Why ?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gheg_Albanian&oldid=565364004
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gheg_Albanian&oldid=565412522

In his edit he writed (→‎Differences between varieties: move to main article), where is this main article ??? Thanks 87.67.254.237 (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A simple investigation you could easily do yourself: "Main article", maybe Albanian language? It should be found in its "Dialects" section. It isn't there, but it does link to a main article, Albanian dialects. Maybe there? Yes! It makes sense to move it to that article, because it is a comparison of Albanian varieties, not about Gheg Albanian specifically. --JorisvS (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but he could show a link for it in the Gheg page, in "See also"... 87.66.216.43 (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it should be linked anyway, so until the wikilink can be placed in the article, it makes sense to put it in the See also section. I have added it. --JorisvS (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ket language

Dear JorisvS. E.g. is Latin (language) and should be italicized. IMHO. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you'd think that, but it's not just me: WP:ITALICS says "Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization." about this. --JorisvS (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Although if it says "do not require" one could construe it as a permissive application. In any event, it is of no great consequence. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Breton pronunciation

Hello JorisvS! About that change [36], my reference was a serious one, a Linguistic Atlas, quite new (2001) and the more recent one, made by a Breton University (Brest), with a special map with that word. You can find the same pronunciation in dictionaries.--Trec'hlid mitonet (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure one can find many places where /r/ is written. However, /r/ is often used to replace any rhotic sound. My main objection is that it does not correspond to the sound file we have and the phonology section. This means that we cannot change that piecemeal like you did, because that only introduces inconsistencies. --JorisvS (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nouvel atlas linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne (2001) makes the difference between different kinds of /r/: for the word brezhoneg (map 454) the [r] has 102 spots; the [ʀ] 64; the [ʁ] only 11 spots; and [ɽ] 3 spots. We are far from what is said on WP.--Trec'hlid mitonet (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Spots"? And how does it address my objections/concerns? --JorisvS (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Renamed article

JorisvS, I see that you renamed Health effects of sun exposure and its Talk page, to say "sunlight" instead. Please, can you also do the same to the archive page Talk:Health_effects_of_sun_exposure/Archive_1, to resolve the broken wiki link on the Talk page? Thanks much. —Patrug (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --JorisvS (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Book title is "ltinisct" not "latinisct"

Hi, you reverted my contribution in Gheg_Albanian, but the title of the book use "ltinisct" not "latinisct", just check the "archive.org" link and the book title page, if you do a search on Google, with "Fialuur i voghel Sccyp e latinisct" you dont find all link but if you use Google "Fialuur i voghel Sccyp e ltinisct", then you get the link for the Google books and others pages... That's all... 87.66.216.43 (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this typo. However, normally, an edit that looks like yours (with the removal of the vowel letter) would be just plain vandalism, which is why I reverted you. Other editors cannot be expected to somehow know that it is not vandalism. Therefore, if you want to prevent an edit such as this to be incorrectly identified as such, you should add an edit summary to tell other editors that it is a typo; you can also include the link in the edit summary, which should help support your assertion that it is, in fact, a typo (a vandal, of course, could also say he is 'correcting a typo'; I've seen this happen). --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyby / fly-by

Hi JorisvS, Regarding my recent edit of the word "flyby" in the article Jupiter, I asked an American editor for her opinion on the spelling before I altered the article. Her response to my question is here. [37]

I shall not be making any further changes as my policy is to avoid edit wars, but I thought you may be interested in a viewpoint from elsewhere. Summerdrought (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I can understand where she was getting at with its etymology. I simply looked through Wiktionary (wikt:flyby) and several articles to see their preferred spelling. --JorisvS (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[t̪]

Hello, to pronounce the word thing as [t̪ɪŋ] is correct, because it's written in New York English, and I've never heard [t̪ɪŋ]. 雞雞 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that example. I wouldn't call it 'correct' (it is hardly the norm), but simply a pronunciation of some speakers. --JorisvS (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not incorrect, but it's informal. 雞雞 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Informal is not wrong, right? 雞雞 (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was incorrect. I just wanted to distinguish between normative supraregional (which is referred to as 'correct') English, which distinguishes t and θ and d and ð, and the regional characteristics of New York English. --JorisvS (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dari language

Hello, Joris -- What do you think of this edit to Dari language? [38] Also take note of the user name. I was going to undo the next edit after this one ("unexplained content removal"), but then I saw this one and figured they could both be undone in one edit if necessary. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, they are regularly called either, but given the user's name, I'd say this edit is simply intended as POV and can be reverted as such. --JorisvS (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Joris -- I was looking at your recent edit to Dari language [39], and I noticed the combination of "twenty-five percent" and "one-third". I'm wondering whether it wouldn't sound better if both percentages were in the same number format, either:

• between twenty-five and thirty-three (or thirty-five, if rounded up) percent", or

• between one-fourth and one-third". I'll leave this up to you. CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, given that I was just reverting some bad edit. It makes sense to make it the same. And given the uncertainty involved, it makes more sense to opt for the second way, because that does not suggest more accuracy than there is. --JorisvS (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

مهم

Hello, you hear [muˈhɪm], [mʊˈhɪm] or [moˈhɪm] ? 雞雞 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The two vowels sound equally close, and not fully close. That would suggest [mʊˈhɪm], but I have the impression that they are fully back and front, respectively, not near-back and near-close, so [mu̞hɪ̟m]=[mu̞hi̞m] if you want that level of precision. --JorisvS (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

About the distribution of Muslim Tats

Hello JorisvS (sounds pretty Dutch, are you Dutch perhaps? ;) )

I'd like to hear your opinion about the actual status and difference between the so called Caucasian Tats, living primarily in Russia/Azerbaijan and the Tats from Iran[40]

What is the actual difference between the two groups and aren't some sources left out that describe the definition? Like some other users I've encountered sources and books [41] that state that there are Muslim Tats in Iran as well, like the same ones that live in Dagestan/Azerbaijan. While historically, this could be totally correct given that a large exodus happened of Caucasian Muslims towards Iran/Turkey following Russia's conquest of the Caucasus, but of course thats only my assumption.

For example in the book I just linked you, it is mentioned that the "Muslim Tats" live in both Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia, but is it ment that those from Azerbaijan/Russia are the "Tat people (Caucasus)" while those from Iran are the "Tat people (Iran)" ?

I hoped you had perhaps a good idea about this relatively confusing thingy.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but from what I can see, they speak quite distinct languages. The Caucasian Tats speak a Southwestern Iranian language closely related to Persian proper, whereas those from Iran speak several Northwestern II Iranian languages. --JorisvS (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) After reading this exchange, out of curiosity I read the articles on Tati language (Iran) and Tat people (Iran). JorisvS, if you have time, could you take a look at the first sentence in the latter article? It is not clear, but I don't know how to fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit odd though. Yes I noted that the Caucasian Tats speak a Southwestern Iranian language and the Iranian Tats a northwestern one, less closely related to Persian.

Did you open the link for that book I sent you? Its a bit confusing as that part would make one think that there are Caucasian Tats in Iran too. I guess its just because both ethnicities just use the word Tat but aren't actually the same. Funny thing is that there is another group of Tats and they speak a variety of Persian too, namely the Armeno-Tats, aka "Tatified/Persified Armenians".

Thanks for your reply anyway Joris.

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wilson

I think [wilsõ] is wrong. 雞雞 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Context please. There is no sound file or anything else for me to go at. --JorisvS (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant that I don't think [wilsõ] is a correct pronunciation. 雞雞 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In English? Then, no. --JorisvS (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wilson is not a French surname, I don't think [wilsɔ̃] or [wilsõ] is correct. 雞雞 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, in English, no, not correct. --JorisvS (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally, French people pronounce it [wilsɔn], I've never heard [wilsɔ̃]. 雞雞 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[wilsɔn] looks like French speakers trying a bit to imitate the English pronunciation. --JorisvS (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, speakers of Quebec French (I assume that's the variety you're talking about) tend to do a better job at approximating the English pronunciation than the Europeans do. They even use the rhotacized schwa in words like hamburger. That said, I have no idea which of these pronunciations is correct, and in which varieties. [wilsɔn] is not inconceivable; the word Vincennes is pronounced [vɛ̃sɛn] (see French phonology#Low vowels), so the word-final sequence [ɛn] is permitted. Who knows, maybe its back equivalent [ɔn] is also permitted. Peter238 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There's bonne [bɔn], among others. The sequence is certainly permitted. It's just that in native French orthography /-ɔn/ is written -onne, and /-ɔ̃/ -on. Imitating English would mean the speaker would have to know not to pronounce the word as written. ---JorisvS (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that explains it. Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why do you revert my image of Tyche, this is hard than I thought, it's easy. Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 08:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was vandalism. The image is rather meaningless, especially because there is no information on what it is based, which means that it is impossible to assess if it is a reasonable impression of what it could look like. --JorisvS (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JorisvS. You have new messages at Talk:Swiss Standard German.
Message added 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please discuss subject related issues on the its own talk page. Thx. ZH8000 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on 2010 RF43

I was wondering why you reverted my edit on 2010 RF43 and what I should do in the future regarding that type of edit. I've been going through CS1 date errors trying to fix the ones I can. Thanks for the help. Machdelu (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't quite revert it, but fixed the CS1 error in another way. Instead of commenting out the number of observations, I changed the date= parameter to type=. Dates that are accompanied by such things as the number of observations used or "last obs" aren't really what the date parameter is for anyway, and it would be misleading to use that as the "date". --JorisvS (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oort cloud

Your talk page isn't just for you to receive messages, it also serves as an archive of messages you've received so it's clear to all you've already been cautioned about your problematic behaviour (and help connect patterns of bad behaviour). As such, it's important that messages to you about how it's inappropriate for you to use Wikipedia to publish your own ideas belong here. Your own ideas about what minor planets should be called (or what Paul, Hal, or whoever might secretly) aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Instead, we need to stick to what sources say and mean - we can't say "bodies that formed in the inner solar system, because Weissman & Levison don't say or mean that. You might not like asteroid (nor, really, do I, though I recognise the practical difficulties in re-aligning all the literature terminology in a single fell swoop), but that's not for here. Try the IAU or MNRAS or whoever. WilyD 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I like to keep discussions in one place, so that they're actually a good archive and not fragmented. If you like to have a notice on my talk page (or even have the entire discussion copied here), that's fine with me. Don't assume my motivations (like you've been doing), because you're dead wrong about them, and it's not "problematic behavior", it's trying to discuss something. --JorisvS (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Johnson

Hello, Johnson can be either a last name or a first name? 162.247.123.201 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is primarily a surname (Johnson), but can be a given name (wikt:Johnson), with a few examples at Johnson Smith. --JorisvS (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing Rutger's class project

Hey. If you want to review them, see Category talk:Articles in class projects/Rutgers for the articles I have identified as being part of the Rutger's class project this year or last. I've struck out the ones I've copy-edited. Hopefully the cat covers the problematic cases, and the better students in that class actually improved their articles and so went unnoticed. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Bulgarian alphabet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. PureRED (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is hard to argue with an anon who insists on his way, as you and CodeCat have now found out as well. The only thing we then can do is keep reverting, collectively. --JorisvS (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

neither

Hello JorisvS, I heard [ˈnaɪ̯d̪ðɚ], it's really affricate ? Fête Phung (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't hear it in this case. What you're hearing may be a bit of a pause. That said, I think I have heard fortitioning of the dental fricatives to affricates. --JorisvS (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you hear [pɐɪ̯ʃ]? Fête Phung (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --JorisvS (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor planets correction

Thank you very much for this correction! Unfortunately, the definitions made are such elaborate that I still have problems to got through. Perhaps, you also may have look at here.--Sae1962 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. The definition there was basically correct, but the relationship with other terms shaky. There are dominant bodies in solar orbit, the (major) planets, and populations of other bodies, the minor planets and comets, or per the 2006 IAU terms, dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. All known comets are small Solar System bodies and the large majority of minor planets are also small Solar System bodies, but some of them are dwarf planets (with most of them not known for sure: list of possible dwarf planets). A planemo is any body that is round: the planets, dwarf planets, and the round moons (the Moon, the Galilean moons, and several moons of Saturn and Uranus, Triton, and Charon (there are also a few trans-Neptunian moons that could be round). Some people use "planet" with the meaning of "planemo", and then "major planet" is used to refer to the dominant eight that are called planets under the 2006 IAU definition. If there is still something you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask. --JorisvS (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk Pages

You should read the guidelines more carefully if you are going to refer to them.

• The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.
• Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
• Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.

I do not see anything in the list of exceptions that would justify this removal. My undo of your removal was an objection so you should not have removed it the second time either. Nyth63 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the 'not without permission'. Your post is very much disruptive, especially it being in all caps. That's one of the exceptions in there. --JorisvS (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Venus' vs. Venus's in article 1685 Toro

Hello JorisvS,
Thanks for the corrections of that article. I was not sure about the correct form, so I used that from the source itself, see the abstract on http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973AJ.....78..510W - Are you really sure it is with two "s"?
Kind regards,
Renerpho (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The basic rule is +'s, with +' for plurals ending in -s. Biblical and classical names typically also take +'. The usage note at wikt:'#English explains why some people use +' for other names(/proper nouns). The difference between -s' and -s's is not merely orthographical, but can be heard: -s's sounds like "-sses". --JorisvS (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Turing machine: that vs. which

Concerning our recent edits in Turing machine: apparently we both agree on the rules, but disagree on whether the clauses are restrictive. I think they both aren't, since the subject is already completely determined without the relative clause, viz. by the name "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" (there is only one such book) and "Turing tarpit". That's why I thought/think "which" should be preferred over "that". Do you think the clauses are restrictive? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They are most definitely restrictive. A restrictive clause specifies ("restricts") the reference of its head. "Any computing system or language" refers to a far broader set than "any computing system or language that is generally considered useless for practical computing", and therefore the subordinate clause is restrictive. In "a famous book that discusses the Church–Turing thesis", the subordinate clause is also meant for specificity, and when spoken aloud no pause, typical of non-restrictive clauses, can be heard (and hence no comma is written even when people use "which" in this case), indicating a restrictive clause. --JorisvS (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Artist impression of KOI-1686.01.jpg

Hello Joris, can you please delete this file on Wikimedia Commons?

Just nominate for deletion, thank you. :) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 07:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You should be able to do that yourself. When you're at the image's page on Commons, to the left there is a tool called "Nominate for deletion". --JorisvS (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

unstressed vowel

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TTk55YFIwI

Hello, this man pronounces it the word congratulations as [kʰɒnˌɡɹʷæt͡ʃʉu̯ˈleɪ̯ʃənz], the first syllable is wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The first syllable is [kʰɒn]? Fête Phung (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe [n͡ŋ] and the /k/ rather weakly aspirated. Hardly 'wrong', especially given that it's a song and said pretty emphatically, but not quite the pronunciation that one would typically find in casual speech. --JorisvS (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

epiglottal fricatives really pharyngeal trills?

Hey, if you're up to it, the Esling (2010) ref I used at laryngeal consonant does not distinguish pharyngeal from epiglottal, with the IPA epiglottal fricatives reanalyzed as trills. Not something I'll get to soon, as we'd probably need to delete the examples. Not sure what to do with the pharyngeal-epiglottal article.

We should probably add to vowel his division of vowel space into front, raised, & retracted. Lots of indications of this in the older lit, but he's the expert for laryngeal sounds.

BTW, how do you intend your user name to be pronounced? — kwami (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't access Esling. I don't know if it is good to lump everything into pharyngeal consonant, because they're still distinct articulations, though your description in the lead there of which can and cannot be reliably produced may well be accurate. Then again, I can easily prevent epiglottal trilling when producing a fricative by tensing up the pharynx. What is a division of vowel space into "front, raised, and retracted" supposed to be?

As if written "YorisvS". Do whatever you like with last two letters, you can spell them out. --JorisvS (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

His description of vowel space as it relates to oral+laryngeal articulation, based on the three directions of tongue movement: fronted (i y e ø ɛ œ æ a ɨ ʉ ɘ ɵ ɜ ɞ), raised (u ɯ ʊ o ɤ ɨ ʉ ɵ), and retracted (ɑ ɒ ʌ ɔ ɞ), with ä none of the above. (That is, there are no back vowels.) They'd be aligned, if possible, under the palatal, velar, and pharyngeal columns of the C chart. Can't line them up that way without twisting the chart, so he adds lines to the V chart like a Venn diagramm. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And does he then distinguish between several dimensions within those, especially front, or something? And what's with vowels being in both "fronted" and "raised" or "retracted", especially given that they're supposed to be aligned to palatal–velar–pharyngeal? --JorisvS (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

potato

Hello, as far as I know, the normal pronunciation is [pəˈteɪ̯ɾoʊ̯], but [poʊ̯ˈteɪ̯ɾoʊ̯] is wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It does sound a bit weird or forced, so I'd say yes. --JorisvS (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

American people pronounce the word muffin as [ˈmɐfɪn] or [ˈmɐfən]? Fête Phung (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

wikt:muffin. --JorisvS (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This man pronounce it [ˈmɐfən], but [ˈmɐfɪn] is rare in United States? Fête Phung (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite [ə]. More like a centralized [ɪ]. --JorisvS (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there some American people who pronounce exactly [ˈmɐfɪn]? Fête Phung (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably, though it'll depend on how you perceive "exactly [ɪ]". --JorisvS (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there some American people who pronounce person as [ˈpɚsən], but medicine as [ˈmɛɾɪsɪn] ? Fête Phung (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. --JorisvS (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So, do you pronounce it [ˈmɛɾəsən] ? Fête Phung (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to answer Fete:

• Longman Pronunciation Dictionary recommends /ˈmed.s(ə)n/ for both GA and RP. I may be wrong, but /ˈmedɪsɪn/ is probably an old-fashioned RP pronunciation.
• The /ɪ/ - /ə/ distinction is meaningless for speakers with the weak vowel merger. You live in Canada, right? Ignore unstressed /ɪ/ and pronounce it the same as /ə/, just as you'd ignore /ɒ/ and pronounce it the same as /ɑː/.
• In case of at least some speakers, you really need quite an ear to hear the /ɪ/ - /ə/ distinction in modern RP, and that's because the weak /ɪ/ is retracted to [ɪ̈], which is just a bit higher than the highest allophone of /ə/, that is [ɘ]. Yet, if you want to speak RP and don't produce this distinction, you'll sound like a near-RP speaker from Norfolk. Peter238 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

plutonian moons

The cite you added here was to a sentence fragment. Could you clarify what it means? — kwami (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently the point of the sentence got lost when I was merging that content from Pluto with the sentence about it that was already there.[42] I've fixed it. --JorisvS (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know

Hello Joris,

I believe this is the same annoying IP hopper that for some time now is trying to systematically de-link Afghanistan from Pakistan and India on various linguistic, regional, and historical articles we've been both reverting for some time. Perhaps a SPI in the near future. (?)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've seen some clearly non-constructive edits that I've rolled back. --JorisvS (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pluto

You revert (per vandalism) old image of Pluto without a bit more cropping and enlarging to resize using GIMP combo from source URL to increase resolution through the nearest neighbor. I want it, thanks. :) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 09:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You should look better at what I did. Nowhere did I call it "vandalism". I reverted those edits because enlarging it is utterly pointless. The resolution of the image is low and enlarging it doesn't make it any better. Cropping could be okay but is still pointless I think, because the actual displayed size of Pluto shouldn't be any bigger than it is because the image is of low resolution, and hence cropping would probably simply mean that the total image becomes out of proportion relative to the infobox.

P.S. WP:V links to "verifiability", not "vandalism". --JorisvS (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: Pluto will be zoom in disc, true to be okay with that. --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 06:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say...

P.S. please put what you write in the appropriate section. Also, there is no need to use "{{ping|..." on the talk page of the user you're pinging. --JorisvS (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I also noted, that the pixelated version is completely inappropriate and I had to revert Jcpag2012's version of the image back to the original. If that monkey business continues, I suggest to take a closer look at what's going on... Rfassbind -talk 15:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: Thank you! Jcpac2012 has been busy! Although he is not a vandal, he has a distinct track record of poor editing, due to, I suspect, lack of ability. --JorisvS (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalking here. Just a note, I've blocked Jcpac2012. The disruptive nature of his editing and obvious competence issues simply went too far. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why revert?

I certainly won't revert you, but I note, per [43], "In American English a comma should follow e.g. For example: Female marsupials (e.g., kangaroos, opossums) have a pouch." JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be ".... have pouches"? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RM at Kurdish language

Hi. Regarding your comment here, what do you mean by "both are the same name"? "Kurdish language" and "Kurdish languages" do share the same words, but they are distinct terms. Khestwol (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Kurdish" is the name/term and can already refer to the speech on its own, without any extra word required. However, because it can also refer to the people, and article titles have to be unique, a disambiguator has to be added. This is the "language(s)" part. --JorisvS (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Chinese language/dialect

Per this edit, I refer you to the guidelines for the example tables at the phone pages. In particular, note 1.4 specifically points to situations like Chinese where there is ambiguity or dispute with the language/dialect issue. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is a) in your user space (you don't own those articles) b) I contest that in case of Chinese it is "ambiguous"; it is rather clearly a family of languages. --JorisvS (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nearly everything in that page is based on explicit consensus. If you look closely, you'll see that I linked to the specific conversation where that issue was discussed.

Chinese most certainly is an ambiguous case, though scholarly practice in general is to refer to Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. as "dialects." It's in our interest to be neutral, which is why we have varieties of Chinese, not "Chinese languages" and why we have e.g. Wu Chinese and not "Wu language" (though we have redirects accordingly). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Varieties of Chinese" and "Wu Chinese" are fully accurate and so quite fine. Structurally, the Chinese languages are as different, if not more so, than the Romance languages. Saying that they are/could be considered one language is like saying all speakers of Romance speak the Latin language. So no, not ambiguous. There are non-linguistic factors that differentiate the Chinese situation from that of Romance (ethnicity, writing system, history?). But these are non-linguistic factors. To use these in distinguishing languages, although fairly common, is dishonest linguistically.

As for "consensus", there was almost no discussion and only three editors expressed their agreement, including yourself. Also, that has been over 7 years ago and consensus can change. Aside from all that, it was never promoted to an official guideline, else it would no longer have been in your user space. --JorisvS (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not categorically opposed to grouping them, but the case of clear-cut dialects should at least be distinguished from the case of structurally distinct languages. --JorisvS (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Chinese as a language vs. as a group of languages, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But it is not your place to dismiss the large body of scholarship that disagrees with you. There is a sizable portion (in my own research, the vast majority) of scholarship that refers to these varieties as dialects. I suggest that you may want to step back from calling this "dishonest linguistically."

There's no reason to quibble about how strong the consensus is. The guidelines reflect extensive discussion and I've even marked places that don't reflect discussion but seem agreed on in practice. The phone articles have reflected the particular policy with regards to Chinese, Arabic, etc. for years and the discussion itself, although involving only a few editors, was in a forum monitored by other editors who could have disagreed but did not. There are a number of reasons why the guidelines are still in my userspace, but that they are should not be taken as an implication that there is not a consensus on them or that consensus is weak. In fact, one user even recently made reference to them as if they were official.

If you would like to bring up the issue of how to present ambiguous cases like Chinese or Arabic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, I think we could get as good a consensus as we got before. I'm not sure what sort of way we could distinguish between clear-cut cases of dialects and more ambiguous cases or the merits of doing so, but I invite you to make your case. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You have not presented any argument why linguistically it makes sense to talk about Chinese dialects, but Romance languages. Reference to common practice is an argumentum ad populum. --JorisvS (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, bring it up to see if you get a different consensus. If you want to know experts' rationale, you can look at the relevant sections of Chinese language and varieties of Chinese. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing about a supposed expert's rationale for using 'dialects'. Both talk about that the Chinese varieties are popularly called dialects (which nobody denies) and the (non-linguistic!) reasons for that. They also say that the differences are quite significant and the former specifically says that 'but linguists note that they are as diverse as a language family'. --JorisvS (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Conventional English-language usage in Chinese linguistics is to use dialect for the speech of a particular place (regardless of status) while regional groupings like Mandarin and Wu are called dialect groups."

Quote: "As Campbell (2008) explains, linguists often ignore mutual intelligibility when varieties share intelligibility with a central variety (i.e. prestige variety, such as Standard Mandarin), as the issue requires some careful handling when mutual intelligibility is inconsistent with language identity."

I think I've gone above what I need to convince you that a sizable portion of linguists refer to these varieties as dialects. Their reasoning is of academic interest for the articles in question and, if you'd like to contribute to those articles to expand on the issue you're more than welcome research it and do so. But it doesn't change our own approach of being neutral. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I asked for reasons why it is not linguistically dishonest to call them dialects (which you've claimed). The only argument you seem to be able to muster is the fallacious argumentum ad populum. --JorisvS (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible source

There's a video on Youtube of an Albanian teaching the alphabet titled "Learn Albanian with Viola. The Alphabet II"

If you skip to the 5th minute or so, you can see the tongue is between the teeth. I'm surprised why linguists don't know that Albanian ll is a dental lateral approximate, but then again, people used to believe that the "q" was pronounced like the "k". --68.239.10.168 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source (WP:RS). Moreover, looking at a speaker, seeing his tongue, and interpreting that as meaning it is dental is unreliable and original research, which is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia. Instead, look for academic articles about the phonology of Albanian. If one says that ll is a "dental lateral approximant" (and not something ambiguous that you interpret to mean that), that makes it a source. Then look for sources that say it is alveolar to see if the source you found disagrees with the majority. Also, a source that only talks about ll being "velarized" contradicts neither of the aforementioned possible claims. --JorisvS (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Barycenter merger and rename proposal

Dear JorisvS, if you have a spare moment to read the comment on the Barycenter talk page, I'd appreciate. It's about a proposal to rename the article. Whatever you see fit will be fine with me. -- Thx & cheers, Rfassbind -talk 03:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi! I was wondering if you could possibly comment on this discussion? Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious

solar moon summary languages
Thank you, Joris, for quality contributions to astronomy based on scientific background, such as updating Pluto, for articles such as (144908) 2004 YH32, categories and navboxes such as {{SolarMoonSummary}}, for serving pronunciation in many languages, in articles like Linguolabial nasal, page moves, redirects and helpful talk, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Much appreciated! --JorisvS (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: That would all be well if you would respect the WP:BRD cycle. --JorisvS (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: That applies to you as well. One user introduced Pashto. You reverted it. Another user added it, you reverted again (your first BRD violation). Only then did I add it, again you reverted (second BRD violation). WP:BRD does not mean you can veto other users and ignore a consensus contrary to what you prefer. That's WP:OWN.Jeppiz (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: And please don't me wrong, I love the work you're doing and I've been following it for a long time, you're one of the most useful contributors to the project. Still, we all need to remember that consensus is important. My placing the "warning" here was only to avoid a misfortunate situation where you accidentally would revert again, risk being blocked, and robbing the discussion of a valuable contributor. I would rather shoot myself in the foot than go to ANI and argue for a block on you, I can assure you. Jeppiz (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: No, that user *reverted* my revert, which already violates WP:BRD, which I reverted again precisely because his edit violates BRD and you reverted again. If you look at it, without the addition is where the BRD cycle pauses during the discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite possible. At any rate, let's focus on the discussion as it's clear the table needs be changed (several branches missing, others over-represented). Pashto most likely won't make the final cut, I agree.Jeppiz (talk) 16

14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JorisvS. You have new messages at Jeraphine Gryphon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 90377 Sedna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julian year. 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) 09:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Pallas and Hygiea being dwarf planets

I was wondering something before - about 2 Pallas and 10 Hygiea being dwarf planets. I'd say the odds are high. Images of Pallas from the HST show a rounded object. Hygiea appears to be an oblate spheroid, just like most planets and stars. Pallas appears to be an ellipsoid. This WOULD disqualify it from being a dwarf planet, if not for the fact that Haumea and Varuna are also ellipsoids, and Haumea is a dwarf planet and Varuna is nearly certain to be one. Therefore, is it allowed for me to put those two in the Dwarf planets template under "Likely"? The odds of them being dwarf planets are high. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, have you seen a source that says the odds are high? I, for one, haven't. Now, if you google for images of Hygiea, you can find derived shape models. These are not ellipsoidal/spheroidal. Then again, look at Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko, and see how its derived model (in the Gallery) looks completely different from its actual shape. I'd say we simply don't know Hygiea's shape. Given its size and density (and hence composition), I'd say it still is a possibility. Mimas is round and a bit smaller, but also a lot icier. Phoebe used to be round and is less than half the size of Hygiea, but is also icier.

Pallas looks rounded, but also lumpier than Vesta appeared in HST imaged. Vesta looked round, except around its south pole. Vesta used to be round, but is no longer because it has been disrupted around its southern pole by big impacts. Furthermore, its trixial shape does not match those it would have for hydrostatic equilibrium (though this would by itself mean that it technically wouldn't fit the established definition of dwarf planet, I doubt it would have stopped people from calling it a dwarf planet; else Iapetus would not be called a dwarf planet either if it would have been in solar orbit; its dimension also don't match those it would have if in HE). As I said, Pallas doesn't look as nicely round as most of Vesta did and it is, like Vesta, a rocky body. In all, I sincerely doubt that it is one.

At any rate, you'd need a source for your claims: WP:RS. --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Vesta appears to have solidified while in HE but since been battered out of shape (unlike Iapetus which is simply frozen in an old HE). But AFAIK no-one thinks that Pallas or Hygiea were ever in HE. Of course, they could be like Phoebe, but we're unlikely to be able to say anything definitive any time soon. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Moon of 55637

Thx for double-checking (some) of my edits (I consider that to be a very instructive mentoring). As I'm working on the List of Solar System objects by radius, I came across the TNO (55637) 2002 UX25 which is said to have a moon (with D: 193 km per source, p.18). Question: what's the designation of the secondary and is there anything (e.g. a redirect page to the primary) on wikipedia? -- Thx, Rfassbind -talk 16:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It was apparently discovered in 2005[44], but it seems to have been submitted in 2007, so then systematically it would be called either S/2005 (55637) 1 or S/2007 (55637) 1. Using the what redirects here tool, there is no redirect to its section at present. --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Googling leads to hits for both. We have 2005 in Template:Moons of dwarf planets, but the French Wikipedia has 2007: fr:S/2007 (55637) 1 and we have 2007 in Minor-planet moon. Using Google Scholar gives no live hits for either, but regular Google gives the book "Le lune del systema solare"[45] ("The moons of the solar system"), which has 2007 and which is the most reliable source I can dig up. Given all this, I'd opt for using 2007. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough clarification. So it's S/2007 (55637) 1 (most likely) as I found in the Portuguese version as well. I already saw your update in Template:Moons of dwarf planets. So the question seems to be settled. Probably it's not worth to create redirect-pages to moons "with no name". So I leave it there for S/2007 (55637) 1. One more thing about the mentioned template: I changed two links since there are already redirect pages for Actaea (moon) and Ilmarë (moon) for 120347 Salacia#Satellite and 174567 Varda#Satellite, respectively. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Whenever in the future there is enough information for standalone articles, nothing needs to be changed there. --JorisvS (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear JorisvS, I just revised Trojan (astronomy). If you, my highly respected fellow editor, could take a look at the article's lead section, I would feel tremendously honored. ---Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hurray, you're back. You were widely missed.-- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 11:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you! I was on vacation. I've taken a look at it and it looks rather good. I rephrased the part about trojan moons to try to phrase it more clearly, but maybe it could use a bit more tweaking. --JorisvS (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

About the piped link issue: I probably should have linked straight to WP:NOTBROKEN instead of the broader MOS:NOPIPE (WP:NOPIPE). Apologies for being insufficiently specific. As I will certainly incorporate that rule in my future c/e's it is worth to sort it out once and for all. Rfassbind – talk 17:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Danish Sign Language

DSL is the ancestor of the language family -- it's the protolanguage. Tracing its genealogy from the DSL family is like tracing the genealogy of proto-IE from the IE family. That makes no sense. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: So what is it? The sign language of Denmark or the protolanguage? --JorisvS (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's both. All the other languages in the family descend from DSL. I suppose it might be okay, but it's weird. Might benefit from discussion. Will post a thread at WP:LANG. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are two different things. They may be similar and even share a name (which would mainly create confusion), but distinct nonetheless. Save for maybe less difference, it's like calling Italian Latin and then an article on "Latin" is about both proto-Romance and modern Italian. When did those others descend from the sign language in Denmark? How much change occurred for those and for the sign language of Denmark? --JorisvS (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pitjantjatjara dialect

Hi, I understand that the country in which the language/dialect and its general usage is found, might (or might not) have a precedence over the universal tendencies of linguists et al (sic) formats, however, the article as it stands has at least further 3 MOS issues which I dont have the time to tinker with in the short term, but it would be useful to have a fuller explanation other than the edit summary as to what you are flagging, if that is ok with you - cheers JarrahTree 10:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What does it have to do with "other" MoS issues (it's not even a MoS issue, it's just a different format)? My removal is due to: You tagged the article for using MDY dates, but it already uses DMY dates. --JorisvS (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Pluto Earth Moon Comparison.png

I like the angle of the Pluto image. We don't see much of that side due to the low res, but it's perfect for this image. But, could you add Charon? Earth-Moon ~ Pluto-Charon make an intuitive comparison. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There's already File:Pluto Charon Moon Earth Comparison.png. --JorisvS (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Tarvos (moon) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Kiviuq (moon) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit War on s2009s1

I took it to a talk page this morning, you can catch up znd contribute at User talk:Favonian. We can talk it over over there. I dont think the deletion is right, you can read up on Favionians talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't. You should take it to the article's talk page, Talk: S/2009 S 1, not mention it tangentially at some user's talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point, its too much to transfer over but before you mess with the moonlet page again, at least try to talk about it on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you start a new, sensible discussion at the appropriate talk page (which is not that user's talk page), then I will respond. There is nothing to "transfer", just start a new discussion by writing a few on-topic sentences. --JorisvS (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Peaks and pits

On second look, the ref states that most craters have both central pits and central peaks; it seems a contradiction or a mix of both. Anyhow, I still disagree with using the word "related" as it is vague and the source does not go into that. It is OR. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Related"? Yes, the source does talk about both pits and peaks. The source says that central peaks are common in craters and central pits are more common than on the icy moons of the outer Solar System. --JorisvS (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Turks

Hello. Do you have edited that you trust? I'm living in Iran and the situation here better than you know. I am an Azerbaijani Turks. Please do not change when you do not have enough information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin turk (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --JorisvS (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"nareal"

Re. this[46], the ExtIPA now calls it "nasal escape". (I'm updating from the 2002 revision.) No idea if this is anything other than a nasalized fricative, as it's designed for speech disorders of English. Only called "nareal fricative" when the diacritic is over a nasal consonant. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about what they did, but I do know is that it's either inconsistent or confusing. That section first makes it quite clear that it is about "true nasal fricatives", i.e. consonants with frication in the nasal cavity (such as [n͋]). If then, as in your version, that very section goes on to talk about [v͋], with the same diacritic, as simply "nasal escape" (which sounds an awful lot like simple nasalization), it sounds like there is a logical inconsistency, which may alternatively be, if it's just the interpretation of "nasal escape", just very confusingly worded. In either case, it only serves to confuse readers, which is, of course, undesirable. --JorisvS (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Could be bad wording for simultaneous oral and nasal frication, or it could simply be an ordinary nasal fricative an a speech defect. No idea. — kwami (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Helium planets

Good points [47]. My involvement in the white dwarf scenario described in the lede was just a rewrite of a somewhat clumsy previous text. I have read up on it a bit after your clarification-tag and the scenario is further explained in the "Evaporated white dwarf" section down below in the article. Should this section be expanded maybe? What do you think? Cheers. RhinoMind (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Je ne comprends pas.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5hrUGFhsXo

Hello JorisvS, at 1:52, you heard [ʒø nø ˈkõʊ̯̃pɾɒ̃ pæ] or [ʒø nø ˈkõʊ̯̃pɾɒ̃ pɛ̈]? 162.247.125.137 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Joris, but to me this sounds like a somewhat centralized (=retracted) and somewhat lowered cardinal [ɛ], i.e. [ɛ̞̈]. Peter238 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Fricative flap

Hi,

You created this, with a link to uvular flap, but never finished there. I'd like to add these to a table at fricative, if any language has them. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I've never seen uvular fricative flaps described in the literature, and I've tried a couple of times (SOWL, my other books). Nothing has come up so far. Peter238 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if they're just short (single-contact) trills. Sources often call such things "flaps".

BTW, the two of you might like Kelabit language. I just got access to the Blust article, and things are much more interesting than I expected. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision of MOSNUM re non UK and non US display of units of measure

Hi Joris,

On 6 August you supported a proposal to clarify and tighten the rules about units of measurement in non-UK and non-US measures. The wording was this:

In non-scientific articles relating to countries other than the US and the UK, the primary units are metric or other internationally used units.

[48]

*Support, and look for the best way to say it. Use the international units (first), unless there are good reasons not to. This comes down to non-scientific US-related articles and possibly UK-related article, though as pointed out above, SI units have been in use in the UK for quite some time now, which may actually be enough to warrant a SI-first-accompanied-by-non-metric system of unit presentation there. --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After further discussion, the following wording was proposed:

* In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera).

The other articles referred to included non-US and non-UK articles and this wording received both support and opposition. The full wording can be found in this diff.

As you expressed your opinion a couple of days before this wording was devised it would be helpful if you could indicate whether you supported the later wording. If you could do so here it might help in decision-making.

Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing the IPA edit tool

Hey. Pinged you re. MediaWiki_talk:Edittools#Protected_edit_request_on_20_August_2015. Seems to be working well, but could use your advice on organizing it for easier access. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I currently can't find much of a problem with the organization, but, if possible, the diacritics should be displayed larger by default for readability. --JorisvS (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 August

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 50000 Quaoar page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Unused reference removed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August

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 Alpha Centauri page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the category "Near-Earth-sized exoplanets" from several pages.

Hello! I would like to remind you that any exoplanet with a radius of greater than 0.8 R_e and smaller than 1.5 R_e (or has a mass of under 5 M_e) should belong to this category, also note that this category allows habitable zone planets so I see no reason why it can be there. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed them when there is also the more specific Category:Near-Earth-sized exoplanets in the habitable zone, which itself is in Category:Near-Earth-sized exoplanets. In such cases, adding both categories is very much redundant. The same goes for including Category:Exoplanets in the habitable zone is they are in the former category already. --JorisvS (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think about it's it is not redundant. Some readers may want an index full of planets that are near-Earth sized, regardless if it is in the habitable zone and thus makes this not redundant. Exoplanets that fall within a category should be placed in that category. Also this applies to Category:Exoplanets in the habitable zone, as readers may want an index of exoplanets (regardless of size) in the habitable zone. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is policy: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category", see WP:SUBCAT. The reason: "[...] readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France", which squarely applies here. Readers do have such an index, because the subcategory is also in that category. --JorisvS (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 September

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 120347 Salacia page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Give it a read

Hi JorivS, if you like to and you got the time, please give a read to the lead section of Next-Generation Transit Survey, on which I have worked on recently. Your expertise is very much appreciated. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 13:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Copyedited. --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(225088) 2007 OR10

I was thinking of a way to call objects like this one. You can't call such objects dwarf planets because they are not, and you can't call them possible dwarf planets because that would exclude Eris and Pluto, which ARE dwarf planets.

1. Eris
2. Pluto
3. Makemake
4. (225088) 2007 OR10
5. Haumea
6. Quaoar
7. Sedna
8. Orcus

These are the most massive objects that aren't planets, moons or the sun. What could I call those? By the way, I edited the 2007 OR10 article because I find it amazing that it is so massive but doesn't have a name. 2007OR10 is an important objects and I really think the lead of that article should be improved Dan6233^(talk) 18:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A) Yes, they are. They are also regularly called dwarf planets. No one in their right mind seriously expects to see a non-round object up close if they would be visited by a probe (at best there is some discussion about how sure we can be, but not really much for these largest). It is important to keep in mind that whether or not an object appears on the IAU's very short list of just five has no bearing on whether something is a dwarf planet. Also, it is properly noted that 2007 OR10 is the largest known object without a name. --JorisvS (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Celestia image

The Celestia image on 2060 Chiron seems to have your approval. Can you point me to any rule, discussion or examples so that I can understand when these kind of images are acceptable on wikipedia? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 22:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not so much. It was this or an edit war. Remove it if you like. --JorisvS (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, it's sometimes hard to find consensus;) Rephrasing my question: Is there any case at all where you would approve such images? And, besides the mentioned copy-right issues, what's your rationale for rejecting (some/all) of them? -- Thx, Rfassbind – talk 13:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally not. Artist's impressions tend to convey at least some things that we don't know to be. In case of Chiron's image, it's whether it's round and surface features. I would say only when we need an image to convey something properly and no image that can do that is available (or can be made). --JorisvS (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Venetian/Venetic

I still think this description needs to be better worded. We don't know that Venetic was Italic and in any case, if it were, it would have belonged to one of the extinct pre-Latin groupings. True then that it is not closely related but then an Indo-European link doesn't make anything close. Nobody needed an expert to realise that German and Dutch were related languages, but they did need guidance to realise that these languages are related to Greek and Urdu. Even today for people knowledgeable in languages but never to have heard of Indo-European (or have much of a concept of proto-languages), they will find it hard to believe that German and Urdu are commonly derived, so there really is no need to ever specify that German and Urdu are not closely related. The only two differences with regards Venetic/Venetian is same location and language names clearly have same topographical root. If the northern Greeks decided that their dialect were different enough from standard Greek to warrant a separate name, we might have two (not closely related) languages spoken today side by side called Macedonian. This is why I think the best solution for the Venetian language article is to say something like, Venetian should not be confused with Venetic..., and then the rest of it. Do you agree on principle? --OJ (TALK) 06:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "are only very distantly related"? That's more explicit about the distance of the relationship. And maybe try to word Indo-European into it? However we word it, "not" related is just not true. If you want to change the hatnote, I don't mind. --JorisvS (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. It is very difficult. On the one hand you, the IP editor and I clearly know what the situation is and there is no dispute (I'm glad to say) so we could word it one such way, but on the other hand, how on earth do we explain the issue without delving into the mechanics of proto-languages and all else that might put off a general reader. I feel a bit stuck - IE is still an obscure topic, and Italic (which brings Venetic one step closer to Romance) is not verified academically. Sorry to bend your ear on this!! Any ideas about simplicity? --OJ (TALK) 10:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We could say "are only very distantly related" and add a note (using either <ref group=note>...</ref> or {{refn|group=note|...}}) about both being Indo-European and include a mention of English, Russian, and Hindustani also being about as distantly related to each other and to Venetian and Venetic. --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK then, since you are all right with the longer explanations, how about this?[49], any good? --OJ (TALK) 11:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That was mostly good. I've improved it a bit further. --JorisvS (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no further changes to make to suggest. There is only one thing, as you know the Italian language system is highly complicated. Languages of Italy include Slovene and German and a host of others. Dialects of Italian are covered in Regional Italian. Venetian despite being Romance falls in the first category, and even in the Veneto and among speakers of Venetian in general, there is their regional Italian and the distinct Venetian language. If you look at the question I posted on Talk:Venetian language some days back you'll find that I myself am unable to make sense of the situation. I mean if we put aside the whole dialect vs language issue, this is what we (may) have in Venice: imagine a tourist who speaks Italian heading into Venice, naturally he will try out his standard Italian. No doubt the Venetian will reply in standard Italian but clearly on his Venetian accent; the Venetian will then turn to a local acquaintance and the tourist may then struggle to understand what he is hearing because the Venetian is using the regional Italian dialect which contains different words. Then as that Venetian addresses a third person he may do this in the Venetian language which is purported to be closer related to French and Spanish. I have heard of diglossia but how on earth does one come to have THREE different ways of speaking bearing in mind all three registers are commonly derived. I've been researching for days and can find nothing. --OJ (TALK) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The basics are less complicated than they seem. There is Standard Italian on one hand and Venetian on the other with a continuum of mixtures between them. Where on this continuum what a speaker says lies is dependent on many situational factors, including formality and the other speaker's ability and more. Most of us do change how we talk depending on whom we talk to, but the differences are typically much much smaller than in your example. --JorisvS (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My guess then - and this is purely a guess - is that with the vast relocations of people that have happened in Italy in the century and a half Venice has been within an Italian state, a natural connected accent and dialect stemming directly from standard Italian emerged while persons to have moved to Venice opted not to learn Venetian - the languages of northern Italy have also had the issue of suppression down the decades which hasn't helped, only in recent years is this seeing improvement. For Venetian-speaking descendants, I gather they will be bilingual (Venetian + Italian) and the Italian they speak may either be standard, or regional, or a mixture of the two, but very unlikely all three, Venetian, regional plus standard.

In fact the centuries that Venice was a republic and major power allowed the Venetian tongue to flourish independently. This will certainly be one reason it has survived. In areas such as Friuli (chiefly Trieste) and Istria (Slovenia and Croatia), a great many Italians descend from migrants encouraged to move while Italy controlled the region, so Venetian is not to be expected from them although some Venetian speakers remain in SLO/HR. But the lacuna is this, I still cannot work out why Venetian is switched off from the continuum that surrounds it - the registers to surround Venetian are Romansch while Venetian has stronger links to Occitan of southern France (if my sources are correct). That defies logic. --OJ (TALK)

Yes, it could be something like that. Maybe speakers of proto-Venetian migrated from the west, replacing the early Gallo-Italic of the region. The article also says it lacks typical traits from further west, so maybe the typical Gallo-Italic features just did not happen to spread all the way east into the Venetian-language area. --JorisvS (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah that is a GREAT answer, and very likely the correct one. So thanks. Tell me whether you would go along with this proposal:

What you stated above about possible eastward migration was an informed opinion. No source confirms it, so it would be speculation at best, and breach of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR at worst. At the same time, no source even explores the phenomenon, and yet it is a baffling and intelligent question - why is language x closer to languages y and z when it is surrounded by a, b and c whilst a, b and c are commonly derived and also linked to y and z via a continuum?. To that end we could add this possible description per Wikipedia:IAR. I'll gladly try that. Would you support it? --OJ (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just our personal speculation about what could be behind this, with zero actual evidence for this (and against, although the long recorded history of the Republic of Venice suggests to me that the migration idea is not the case). "Ignore all rules" does not mean a carte blanche to ignore WP:OR (which this very much is). What you could do, though, if it is worth the effort to you, is make an analysis of the linguistic situation of the Gallo-Italic features and where they stop (they won't all stop at exactly the same place, AFAIK there is still a dialect continuum) and the migration history of the broader area; maybe also an analysis historical sound and grammar changes, which might point to Venetian rather having innovated some non-Gallo-Italic features on an otherwise simply Gallo-Italic language, instead of not having acquired the typical Gallo-Italic innovations; and then try to publish this in a reliable place, preferably using a peer-review system, so that experts take a look at it, because this increases reliability a lot. At that point, inclusion won't be a problem, and what gets included will be far more reliable. --JorisvS (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading that in the high medieval period or so, Venetian was much more like Friulian, presumably retaining final -s in the 2nd person, thus basically a Western Romance language. Even the modern Gallo-Italic languages, however, must be classified as Italo-Romance, not Western Romance, based on the fact that they reflect the early and characteristic sound change -s > -j of Italo-Romance (which did not happen elsewhere). Compare Diachronics of plural inflection in the Gallo-Italian languages. (From toponomastic evidence, the Romansh/Ladin/Friulian-type palatalisation of velar stops before /a/ apparently once stretched considerably further to the south, as far as the Po, so perhaps in the medieval period at some point Western Romance varieties were indeed spoken in the region, but later replaced by Italo-Romance ones, which became the modern Gallo-Italic varieties.) So, modern Venetian (which is even less Western-Romance-like than Gallo-Italic) is certainly not a Western Romance language, but an Italo-Romance one (which notion, by the way, is not to be confused with "Italian dialect" – for example, Sicilian is certainly not an "Italian dialect", but the regional variety of Standard Italian in Sicily, basically Sicilian-accented Standard Italian, could be called one; the distinction is much like Swiss German vs. Swiss Standard German or Scots vs. Scottish English). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Cyber Bullying. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Romanian

Hi JorisvS, You undid my changes on a 6 articles related to Romanian graiuri/subdialecte. I had substituted in those articles the word "dialect" for "subdialect" and you changed it back arguing that the "Romanian terms are irrelevant, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Romanian". (btw, I am fluent in both languages, Romanian and English)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the word "subdialect" is an English word as well meaning "a subordinate division of a dialect", you can find it in the Oxford dictionary and in the Wiktionary, too; yes, the Romanian word happens to be the same in this case as the English one (subdialect).

The differences among the various Romanian graiuri do not justify their classification as dialects because their variations are not significant enough for this differentiation; the Romanian graiuri can be accurately translated into English with the term subdialects. It was interesting to notice the effort to show the correspondence between the English and Romanian terms in those articles (e.g., The Moldavian dialect (subdialectul / graiul moldovean / moldovenesc)) but it was curious to see that the actual English word for the Romanian grai/subdialect was not used.

In fact, the English articles about the Romanian graiuri and the titles of these articles are in their current form misleading and create ambiguity, because they do not refer to dialects, but to subdialects, which is an important difference; I noticed in the editing of those articles some past attempts to include the English word subdialect, why exactly was this abandoned? In case a solid argumentation is not provided, the articles should be changed accordingly. Thanks!

PS: there is another discussion about the actual four dialects of Romanian (Daco-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, Aromanian); I am aware that some people consider them languages and not dialects, but maybe we address this topic later; meanwhile, the article "Limba română" on the Romanian Wikipedia says that they are dialects and not languages and gives a good reference mentioning that most linguists consider them dialects; I happen to side with this majority, too. --MFM21 (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, please add a header when you start a new thread and do not add "PS"s.

"Subdialect" means exactly what you say it means, a subdivision of a dialect. However, those are four languages, not four dialects of Romanian, with rather low mutual intelligibility. Yes, the differences between the dialects of (Daco-)Romanian are slight, but they are still primary divisions of a language (i.e. dialects), not divisions of a dialect (i.e. subdialects). Hence, these do refer to dialects, not subdialects, by definition of the terms.

Sure there are sources that do call DR, IR, MR, and AR dialects of a single "Romanian" language, but these have a distinct Romania-centered POV, violating WP:NPOV, and, unfortunately, so does the Romanian Wikipedia. Just because these sources exist is no reason to follow suit, nor is the Romanian Wikipedia. Just because it is in one of those four languages does not mean they know better. --JorisvS (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Pigiarniq

The word is spelt Pigiarniq and not Pinuarniq. Perhaps the pronunciation guide is wrong. I've restored the spelling used by the Government of Nunavut and the designer, Tiro Typeworks, and included references. Yesterday a check of Google found no entries for Pinuarniq but today there are two. One Wikipedia and a mirror. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I only reverted to draw your attention to the clear mismatch between the stated orthographic form and the stated pronunciation, hoping you'd take a closer look and fix this, because you're clearly more into it. I see you didn't, so now I added a dubious tag instead. --JorisvS (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't fix it because I know nothing about IPA. Would it have not been a better idea to tell me there was a problem rather than use a fake word? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And I know almost nothing about Inuktitut. Maybe it would've been better to just tag it in the first place. Anyway, let's now focus on fixing it. The orthography suggests something like /pigiaʁniq/. The article says that "/ʁ/ is assimilated to [ɴ] before nasals", which suggests [pigiaɴniq] (or would this actually become a single sound?). And where is the stress? --JorisvS (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

concerns

• The mention of Juno's mission in the Jupiter lead has gotten too short. It is an important mission.
• I think you might as well remove the word "spacecraft" from this sentence too: The most recent probe to visit Jupiter was in late February 2007 when the New Horizons spacecraft

I personally don't think it is necessary to simplify the content like that.

• Also, sorry but "Jupiter system" sounds really really bad. It might be simpler for the average reader to understand, but it is just wrong. Thanks Huritisho (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I don't intend to modify that article again. I'm just letting you know you probably should change to Jovian system and make the sentences longer for a better readability. The latter is just my opinion though Huritisho (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not wrong. It's a pretty normal alternative construction. It's also not very important which we use. As for the rest, length per se is irrelevant. It should simply summarize the main points. Because Juno has not even arrived yet, it does not merit more than one sentence in the lead: basically just that it is on its way. Yes, "spacecraft" can also be removed there without any loss (it should actually be rephrased further because its construction is a bit awkward; "in late February 2007" isn't a probe).

I don't see how making longer sentences is supposed to improve readability here. --JorisvS (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Because longer sentences make it look less like we're just dumping information Huritisho (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Longer sentences would lump distinct pieces of information and make it look like they would somehow belong together more than just in the same paragraph. It doesn't look like 'dumped information' as written now. --JorisvS (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Juno (spacecraft)

If you have the time and patience, could you help expand the Earth flyby section? It is being difficult to turn the information of the flyby into text. By the way, archive the older discussions in your talk page. God, it is too darn long. Thanks Huritisho (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(→‎top: then format that correctly)

Ok sorry. No need to be rude. Huritisho 16:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of which was to tell you that you should take a little more care when changing things like that (I'm assuming you know enough to see that something like "July 4 2011" at least looks weird and so can notice it if you look at it), lest you only create more work for others (or yourself). As for 'rude', the above "By the way, archive the older discussions in your talk page. God, it is too darn long." could be said more nicely, too. --JorisvS (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My other edits to that article by far compensate a minor mistake of a missing comma. And if you don't want to have some more work to do, perhaps you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. Being a wikipedia editor IS about having work. Huritisho 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do. But I've seen you do it elsewhere[50], so either you honestly didn't know (then simply admit that), or you're quickly typing this (where the 'little more care' would come in). You're assuming rather bad faith with the second part of your remark. I'll note that there is a practically unlimited amount of work, and that's fine and will never change, but it's not about unnecessarily creating new work for others by not taking enough care. Accidental mistakes or not knowing, on the other hand, are perfectly fine! --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojans

Hello, I have a question. I noticed in the Lucy (spacecraft) article that the Trojans orbit along the planet's path either ahead of or behind Jupiter. But in the enclosed image, they are named Greeks and Trojans, respectively. I am hoping you could clarify this for me. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Jupiter trojans (really properly lowercase) are all trojans of Jupiter, in both L4 and L5. The Greeks are the Jupiter trojans ahead of Jupiter (L4) and the Trojans are the Jupiter trojans behind Jupiter (L5). Notice the difference in meaning between the lowercase and uppercase words. --JorisvS (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing "Life on Venus"

I recently fixed a grammatical issue on this page, and I see that you have reverted my edit and replaced it with your own fix. While your correction is still clearly better than what was there before, I suggest that the word "Venus" still be replaced with "its" because "Venus" was already used just a few words back; while grammatically acceptable of course, I think it reads better that way. Thoughts? --Bomb319 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeing your change, the "it" appeared ambiguous to me, but it kind of isn't. Anyway, the logic behind the sentence means that a significant rewording was in order, which I've gone ahead and done. --JorisvS (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion

on this. Huritisho 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --JorisvS (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at Exoplanet

Sorry about that. ThE~fUtUrE~2014 added the required "s", and I misread your change as removing it, rather than just moving it outside the brackets. Rwessel (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could see that from your edit summary. It's no problem, it can happen. --JorisvS (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving GJ 504b to Gliese 504 b

Hi JorisvS! I did a cut in past move as I was not able to move GJ 504b to Gliese 504 b. Here was decided that we should change GJ's to Gliese so that it would be consistant in catagories. When I try to perform a normal move it says the page already exists that's why I did a cut and past move.

Copy-paste moves are the worst possible thing you could do, because they do not preserve the edit history. If you can't move the page (like in this case), you should request a technical move, which can be done at WP:RMT. --JorisvS (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand I have now requested a move it can be found Here. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's even easier to simply follow the link I provided and request it there. Usually, the page is moved within a few hours. --JorisvS (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So should I swap out the other tag that I used and place the other one? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, the page has quickly been moved after you placed a request at WP:RMT. The request at the talk page is now a request to move it to the location where it is already located and hence doesn't make any sense anymore. --JorisvS (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

request

I'd like you to keep an eye on the edits of Kerberos (moon). The edits by kwai may be wrong and/or disruptive. See my message I left in his talk page. Cheers, Huritisho 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moons of Pluto too. His edits are disruptive and I don't wanna get into a discussion Huritisho 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This message was sent to BatteryIncluded and I decided to let you know the issue too. Also, @Huntster:, kwai is once again adding question marks in infobox fields.[51] Huritisho 06:25, 23 October 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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Enceladus

I have nominated Enceladus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)