|Your comments may be archived |
here after 48hrs
Word/quotation of the moment:
- The Confederate flag is a matter of pride and heritage, not hatred.
- In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. (from the WP article Nancy Dorian)
- Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. (from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown)
- Keep Redskins White!
- "homosapiens are people, too!!"
- a sprig of spaghetti
- "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
- anti–zombie-fungus fungus
- "Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)
Hello Im new here I found u on lgbt pages I posted and created new pages concerning lgbt wikiproject Can u please edit them accept them and link them to other languages and if a table of info is needed can u do it And can u please do the portal and the categories please How can i be part of lgbt wikiproject please I translated new pages hope u see and check them They are these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&title=Draft:LGBT_Føroyar&create=Create+new+article+draft#See%20also AdamPrideTN (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to bother u Forget the first msg i delete it the draft But when i search for it in google i cant find it :/ This is the real page Can u see to it please https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Føroyar AdamPrideTN (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Uzbeki Arabic and Tajiki Arabic
I saw that you deleted the two Wikipedia articles "Uzbeki Arabic" and "Tajiki Arabic" in 2013. Now, both articles are linked with the article "Central Asian Arabic". I would like to ask you, why did you delete both articles? I would like to write more and extend both articles. However, before I will start with both articles I wanted to ask you, why these articles don`t exist anymore.
I would be happy if you reply.
- I suspect it was because there wasn't enough info in them to justify separate articles. People differ in whether they see more value in a bunch of stubs or in a single article that brings together the info in them. Also, it could be (don't remember) that they were defined by modern political boundaries rather than linguistic differences.
- You're welcome to recreate the articles if you think you have enough to justify them. But, it may be that the varieties of Central Asian Arabic are better organized by dialect (Bukharian, Balkh, Kashkadarian, Khorasani, etc.) than by which country they happen to be in. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Kwamikagami,
- Thank you for your reply. I have thought about your words.
- As "Uzbeki Arabic" and "Tajiki Arabic" are both listed as separate languages ISO 639:a of ISO 639-3 Language code (in addition, both languages can be found in literature as well) it is useful to keep two separate articles for both languages. I will search for books and reliable sources and I will add further information from time to time. Maybe there are also other users who like to extend these two articles.
- Best regards,
Hi @Tom112233: Personally, I have a real problem allowing ISO to dictate our language coverage. ISO 639-3 is amateurish and unreliable. Many ISO languages are spurious. Some are arbitrary lumpings of different languages together, some are not even separate dialects, but just some village that said they want their own version of the Bible, some are defined by political boundaries, such as the same dialect of the same language having different ISO codes depending on whether it's on the Nigerian or Cameroonian side of the border, some are different names for the same language, some are different languages lumped together because they have the same name, and some don't exist at all. Remember, ISO is based on Ethnologue, which is not a reliable source. They've been trying to clean it up -- see spurious languages for their progress, but there's a long way to go. That's why Harald started Glottolog, but even then, for areas he's not familiar with, he often just inherits the Ethnologue/ISO definition of a language.
I think we should do better. If reliable sources (not Ethnologue, Glottolog or ISO -- though Glottolog is a great place to look for reliable sources) indicate that Uzbeki and Tadjiki Arabic are distinct languages, then fine. If they indicate that we've got dialects of a single language, than that's what our coverage should reflect. And if they're different languages but do not follow modern political boundaries, then again that's what our articles should reflect, or your work could be undone by someone who *is* following reliable sources. As for covering ISO, we can always add an ISO section to the article(s) explaining how ISO does not reflect reality. In such cases, ISO will probably eventually be adjusted to reflect reliable sources. (And indeed this has happened with several WP language articles, where we explained in a dedicated section that the ISO distinction was spurious, and then deleted that section when ISO fixed the problem.) The other way around is not likely to happen -- linguists don't give a fart what ISO says, they only care what the data says. If ISO reflects reality, it's a convenient way to identify a language, but it seems that's only true half the time, so a lot of linguists don't use ISO at all. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Kwami,
- Thank you for your reply.
- I will search in the library for books about Uzbeki Arabic and Tajiki Arabic. I could also buy books about that. Maybe I will also find reliable sources on the internet. I don`t mind to spend my time and money for that.
- Maybe there are also other people who like to extend these two articles.
- Best regards,
- Hello Kwami,
- I found a lot of reliable sources for the two languages Uzbeki Arabic and Tajiki Arabic. I added the sources on the talk page of the article "Central Asian Arabic". I will restore both Wikipedia articles. I will write more and extend both articles from time to time. I will add the different relevant sources to both articles. However, I will also search for more books about these topics.
- Best regards,
@Tom112233: Okay, sounds good. I had my doubts the varieties would just happen to line up with modern political boundaries, but maybe they do. Though I think it might be a good idea to consider the possibility that someone based in Uzbekistan will investigate 'Uzbeki' Arabic, and someone based in Tajikistan will investigate 'Tajiki' Arabic. That in of itself doesn't mean the distinction corresponds to the border, any more than it does in many other cases where a language magically changes when it crosses a political boundary -- I'm thinking ISO East and West Punjabi, which are defined by the Indo-Pakistani border rather than by dialectology, or Karkar, which was thought to be a language isolate until Tim Usher noticed it was just a dialect of a Pauwasi language across the border. Borders get reified, and sources copy each other without bothering to check if they correspond to anything real. IMO it would be nice if you could locate a RS that considers all of the varieties of Central Arabic, and draws genealogical conclusions from the languages themselves. — kwami (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Kwami,
- You are right. I agree with you.
- You wrote:
- "IMO it would be nice if you could locate a RS that considers all of the varieties of Central Arabic, and draws genealogical conclusions from the languages themselves."
- Sorry, what means "RS"?
- Best regards,
- Thank you, yes, I will check if I find reliable sources that considers all of the varieties of Central Arabic.
- Best regards,
Category:Data with undue precision has been nominated for discussion
Category:Data with undue precision, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, not acceptable. Maybe a mention of BS in the section on BS, as I suggested (though we don't really need another example in addition to Fyoderova), but not a long, dedicated section. It should get no more coverage than the idea that the Earth is flat gets at Earth. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can clear up these misconceptions. As I said in edit summary, one of the images is under fair use copyright, so if it's not used (aka orphaned), it gets automatically deleted after a certain amount of time. That's the reason I'd like to keep it up until this can be discussed properly. Xcalibur (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- moving it to talk page is an acceptable compromise. I'm aware images can be undeleted, but I'd rather avoid the inconvenience if possible. Xcalibur (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand that. I assume you're talking about the rising and setting of Antares, since the others would be too simple for (c)? Frankly, even if we were to keep a section on him, that would take up a lot of space for what we get out of it. The final paragraph in the Fanciful section before I deleted everything would be about the maximum a crackpot idea like this would get (and there are plenty of others we don't give that much space to), and that img really doesn't fit there even when I keep the idea. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- In fact I'm referring to the reverse boustrophedon image: . That's the only one licensed under fair use, due to the illustration. The connection there is highly speculative, but it's still of interest, which is why I wanted to keep it. As for space, that can be negotiated. Xcalibur (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Speculative?? The idea that the word for a constellation will depend on which direction you're facing when you write it is ... bizarre, anyway. Maybe if that were the rising-setting distinction. Or if Rapanui had absolute direction in its deictic system, like Australian languages do. But this whole thesis is nothing but unconfirmed speculation, which is what makes it crackpot. There needs to be some demonstration that the translation/reading actually works. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The orientation doesn't affect meaning. Rather, the idea is that it's an aesthetic choice, meant to represent how constellations appear differently in the northern and southern hemispheres. However, I don't know how much of this is Dietrich and how much is Esen-Baur, and it's a speculative detail in any case (and you've already given valid alternate reasons for reverse-boustrophedon). I wanted to include it because it's an interesting elaboration, that's all. As for the rest, I'll discuss it on the relevant talk page. Xcalibur (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've finally returned, and can give you my full attention. I've responded to your points, and await further discussion. Xcalibur (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Update Indian Languages Figure
Hello since you are updating languages figure with updated data. I request you to please update the Indian Languages figure. Here you shall get all the different languages that is spoken in India. Check the infobox their all languages are mentioned.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- All these major Indian Languages figure needs update Thanks--188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
For most of these the 2011 Indian census is the latest info. The main problem is Hindi and the languages recently split off of it, since self-reporting does not reflect the spoken language well. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you need help please check this source about Indian language Source here latest census data has been published also subset of Hindi languages are too published. One question is it necessary to explain in the infobox of Bengali language article especially in the "Native speakers" section ?? Another help in the Bengali people article figure "300 million" has been mentioned in the "Total population" and that source has been claimed by a politician you can check. Could you please tell what should be the accurate and updated figure for this ethnic group article because 300 million seems exaggerated.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The Indian census does not reliably distinguish the various languages of the Hindi belt. That's why they're all lumped together under 'Hindi'. Even Maithili and Dogri -- they're now recognized as official languages, but only 13M out of ca. 40M Maithili speakers reported their language as 'Maithili' rather than as 'Hindi' or 'Bihari', so the census doesn't tell us how many Maithili speakers there are. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Check this Source this source does have a breakup of Hindi sub groups. Another problem Punjabi people article does not state any source in the "Total population" section and giving a vague figure. while mentioning the figure please consider the Punjabi diaspora figure too should be taken into account.
- Now in the Bengali people article you have mentioned 260 million which are L1 speaker only in India and Bangladesh, what about the 20 million L2 speakers and Bengali diaspora across the world there figure too should be taken into account while mentioning the "Total population". So my suggestion is it would be better to give range 260 - 300 million if we don't have an accurate figure about Bengali diaspora.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
If you have a RS for the ethnic population, that's fine. But non-Bengalis don't become Bengali upon learning the language, and whether the diaspora speaks the language or not is irrelevant. The only approximation I have is the number of native speakers. Do you have anything more accurate? — kwami (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. Native speakers or L1 speakers are fine for ethnic group articles specially when we don't highly credible source to back ethnic group or diaspora figures. Kindly change the Punjabi people article in the "Total population" section, there figures had been exaggerated without any kind of source. Thanks--18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have updated Punjabi people figure with source L1 speakers data has been taken into account.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine. With Punjabi, there's also the question of whether speakers of Siraiki, Hindko etc. are "Punjabi". If they are, the population goes up, but who decides? I don't know if they themselves would have consensus on the issue. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)