User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Telescopus semiannulatus.jpg

The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.

Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
Wikipedia Administrator.svg This user is a former administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify).


  • Only an evil person would eat baby soup.
  • To shew that there is no tautology, no vain repetition of one and the same thing therein.
  • In this country we treat our broads with respect.

Words of the day:

  • anti-zombie-fungus fungus
Admin mop.PNG This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time.


Help with the Female heads of state Map[edit]


I was wondering if I could ask for your help with updating the map on the Female Heads of Government and Female Heads of State articles? I saw that you've made modifications to it earlier, and thought that I might ask since I don't know how to do it myself. It is about Dilma Rouseff; the President of Brazil is both Head of State and Government, and thus Brazil should be colored light orange on the map. It would be great if you could change it :).

Thanks --Darthdyas (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

José Sarney is the president of the parliament. Wouldn't that make him the head of government? Or is that not equivalent to a PM, as a presidential republic? — kwami (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. Changed. — kwami (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Squaxin Island Tribe - restore caps![edit]

Taht IS the government, Kwami, it's not a "tribe" in the lower-case sense, i.e. "a people" ,but rather comprised of several peoples who share the common government/reservation. I tried to revert but for some reason can't/ this and certain others of the same kind should NOT be changed; they are not ethnographic peoples, they are "Tribes" only in the legal-mandate/government sense.Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't clear to me. Do we have an article on captital-T Tribe to dab our links with? — kwami (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Was gonna edit that list some, but don't see how to get to it here; even though it displays - ? Snoqualmie Tribe is a government, should be capital-T; not sure there was a Snoqualmie people at all; I think they're an amalgamation of various tribes in the ethno sense. And no, linguistic unity did not mean political/social unity - this is something of an issue in BC where the provincial government wants to stop dealing with 110+ separate "nations" and reduce it to a list of 23 or so, based on linguistic affiliations; but that doesn't always work well; the Wet'su-wet'en are Carrier, or a subgroup of Carrie, but have been tied to the neighbouring Gitxsan for centuries; the various divisions of the Kwakwaka'wakw were and are distinct tribes, despite the common language; Kitsaoo is a Haisla-Tsimshian alliance, also predating Contact. The Tahltan, Kaska and Nahanni are all the same language, but different tribes/peoples/governments. Some Kwak'wala bands use "Tribe" (capital-T) in their names, one t hat comes to mind is Tlowitsis Tribe....coastal peoples are organized by clan, more than they are by language; see Ganhada, wherever that refers to, which is about one of the main clans, which are cross-language-group and cross-"tribal". Much like "chief", "tribe" is an imposed concept; places like Masset or Squamish/Capilano had more than one chief; in Coast Salish peoples siyam, usually translated as "chief", is really the noble class, and each community has more than one family with that appellation; the idea of a monarchical chief is an outside concept; likewise the notion of "tribes".....each village in BC was its own country, virtually, and within languages there were often bitter enemies, centuries-long in rivalry.....anyway I'll look over that list further; but make sure to read the article; if they were assembled on a reservation they are not a "people", and "Tribe" would refer to the post-conquest government/legal charter. The Okanagan National Alliance homepage lists "bands" in the Colville Reservation, by the way, which are really (in WP Wash) actually towns within that Reservation and SFAIK not chartered as "bands" as such, but as town governments somehow; e.g. Nespelem.Skookum1 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
To edit the list, see User talk:Kwamikagami/top. Comments there or here as you like. For the original list, see my Oct-Dec archive. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere out there, User:Uysvidi and I are discussing the same thing; I'll try and find that discussion; it may be, or one part of it, on the NorthAmNative talkpage....Skookum1 (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kwakwaka'wakw IPA?[edit]

Thought I'd toss this request over to you....if User:Old ManRivers were around he could supply it (He's 'Namgis (Nimpkish) on one side....I know those /kw/ phonemes are some particular back-guttural, not just like "kwah" in English...many white people pronouncing this make it sound rather, um, vulgar/pornographic......Skookum1 (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only guess what the allophony might be, but I gave it a shot. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

An article name[edit]

Would you cast an admin's eye over Talk:Mad Hatter? Discussion about a proposed move (by me) to The Hatter has been frustratingly stonewalled (in my opinion) to the detriment of accuracy. -- Evertype· 10:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your POV, but that isn't an administrative issue. It is frustrating to argue about each article rather than having a set convention, and it is the quality of the arguments that's considered, but there are valid arguments on both sides here. As at starfish, for example. I think it's poor form to have it under that name, since it isn't a fish (at least not since the 20th century), and I once moved it, but that is the common name, from the days when turtles and cowries were fish, and I was reverted. I can add my opinion, but I don' see what I could do as an admin, unless I can judge one argument unconvincing. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IPA request for The Byrds[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami! I have a favour to ask you. I took a look at the contributor statistics for the Wikipedia:IPA for English page and I see that you're the biggest contributor on there, so I reckon you're probably the best person to approach with my request. I'm currently working to get The Byrds article ready for a GA review but because of the unusual way the band spell their name, I want to add a bracketed IPA pronunciation guide to the opening sentence, using the {{Pron-en}} has been done in the Metallica and Devo articles. However, I have very litle idea of how the International Phonetic Alphabet works and I don't want to mess it up. Would you be kind enough to do this for me? Many thanks in advance. Oh, by the way, in case it's not obvious, Byrds is pronounced as Birds. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your best bet would be to say just that: "pronounced as birds" or some such. That would be the most accessible to the widest audience. If you really want the IPA, though, it would be /ˈbɜrdz/. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your advice and help. It is much appreciated. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Tamazight" IPA[edit]

Would you mind clarifying where you sourced the English pronunciation for the word "Tamazight"? (I'm not sure what you meant by "random house".) /ˈtæməzaɪt/ seems dubious; the word is not English and thus a phonetic rendering such as [ˈtæməzɪgt] would seem to be better than a spelling pronunciation ("ight" being pronounced as in "fright", etc.). Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here. I haven't checked the print version of the Random House dict, though, and it isn't listed in the OED. Webster's III is another place to check. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This seems highly dubious to me. I doubt anyone knowledgeable enough to use the term "Tamazight" rather than "Berber" would pronounce it that way (note its pronunciation in French, by the way). However it's not a big issue, I guess. Mo-Al (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not so sure myself. I think if we're going to use it as an English word, we should supply an English pronunciation, but that's all I could find apart from /ˈtæməzɪərt/ for the French spelling. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Around the Linguistic Data Consortium of the University of Pennsylvania where we've been developing a Language Resource wiki for researchers in poorly resourced languages, we pronounce it [tɑmɑˈzɪɣt].
Random House is the name of a large publisher whose product line produces dictionaries. If they say */ˈtæməzaɪt/, they're wrong: that could only be an uninformed English spelling pronunciation, dollars to donuts automatically generated.
If you're looking for a purely English pronunciation, I'd suggest [tɑmɑˈzɪgt], changing the [ɣ] to a [ɡ]. Thnidu (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
[tɑmɑˈzɪɣt] is not English, and [tɑmɑˈzɪgt] is just made up. If we're going to claim this word is English, we should at least have an English pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I work at the LDC, and have worked with Tamazight speakers. This is a loan form that we have observed and use in borrowing the endonym [tɑmɑˈzɪɣt] into English. We didn't "make it up", any more than anyone "made up" the pronunciation /ˈtæmɨl/ [ˈtʰæmɨl] for the endonym of the Tamil language, [t̪ɐmɨɻ] (substituting an aspirated alveolar stop for an unaspirated dental one and going on from there). Another loan pronunciation would be /tɑmɑˈzirt/ (or /tæməˈzɪərt/), as English-speakers often hear a non-strident [ɣ] as a type of /r/.
Random House's /ˈtæməzaɪt/ is sheer nonsense, a spelling pronunciation no more defensible than */fræŋˈkeɪz/ would be for "français". I would call either a ghost pronunciation, generated from the spelling without reference to any pronunciation ever uttered for the word. It would be better to offer no pronunciation at all than such a bogosity.
So, I conclude, we are in agreement: "If we're going to claim this word is English, we should at least have an English pronunciation." I'm deleting this so-called English pronunciation, with no replacement. See Talk:Central Atlas Tamazight#English pronunciation of the name "Tamazight" Thnidu (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Yi language for deletion[edit]

The article Yi language is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yi language 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 good 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. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ainu language and Ainu languages[edit]

Hello again. I wasn't sure if you'd checked Talk:Ainu languages recently, but I've (finally) gotten around to responding. --Limetom 20:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Standard Mandarin and Standard Chinese and posisbe inapproiate use of tools. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation fest[edit]

I see you're on a disambiguation page-creating rampage. So far, you've created at least 7000 new dab links - they're most of the entries at the top of the list here. Now, you aren't required to clean up after yourself per WP:FIXDABLINKS - and if past history proves anything, you won't - but I have to say, it's pretty disappointing to see an editor of your experience willing to create such a huge mess and leave it for others to fix. --JaGatalk 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not creating the mess, WP is already a mess. Funny how calling anyone's attention to that, or starting to solve it, makes it my fault. I find it disappointing that you'd rather blame someone than actually do anything about it.
If, of course, you determine that e.g. Telugu is nearly always used for, say, the language rather than the people or script, then you're welcome to revert me. — kwami (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opposing the change. I'm opposing dumping a ton of work on others. It will take many many hours for the DPL project to fix all of these links, and it would be nice if you could give a hand. --JaGatalk 17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but if they need to go to various articles, then it was an even worse problem before I created the dab page, because many were going to the wrong page rather than to just a dab, and I'm not creating any work that didn't already need to be done. If it's too much work, then just revert and bury the problem for some future editor to deal with. I'd like to be able to help out, but I'm backlogged as it is with rd problems that make it difficult to find pages; a dab page just adds another mouse click. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
We'll fix it. If you feel OK with doing the 15 seconds' worth of work to create a disambig, and leave the hour's worth of dabfixing work to others, that's up to you. I just wanted to make sure you're aware of what you're doing. --JaGatalk 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was good for me to see the consequences. For a well developed article like Telugu, I'm sure our readers can figure it out if you revert. But as you like. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not reverting you, Kwami. I, along with a handful of other editors, will roll up our sleeves and fix the mess you've created. If you'd like to help, you could take a stab at Marathi. It's not difficult work, just time consuming. It can even be enjoyable, if you're willing to give it a try. --JaGatalk 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I am going to revert some of these. I commenced with the sleeve-rolling-up previously mentioned, and after a while, I noticed that for most of the articles, almost all of the links were intended for X people, not X language. That is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. What's more, these dabs you've been creating have only two entries. So now we're into WP:TWODABS territory. That is, when there are only two entries on a disambig, and one is a primary topic, the proper thing is to redirect to the primary and put a hatnote on the primary for the second article.

So, I'm going through this list of new dabs, evaluating, and redirecting to the primary when necessary. Still a mess, but it cuts down on the workload somewhat.

If you have still more dabs you want to create, please review WP:TWODABS before proceeding (and give us a chance to clear the present backlog first!)

Cheers, --JaGatalk 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that before. Still, I'm not sure that's what "primary topic" means for WP. You're saying it's whichever topic that has the most links, while the WP page you linked to says it's the one most likely to be entered into a search engine. With people vs language, I don't know how you'd decide that: is the random reader really more likely to be searching for French people than the French language? And for obscure peoples vs obscure languages? When I've created X people vs X language articles, other editors have complained when X was a redirect rather than a dab, which is why I've been going through them. — kwami (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It is hugely disruptive of you to create all these dablinks and then not make any attempt to fix the incoming links. Please stop creating them and start dabbing. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to clean them up, then don't. It's hardly a problem to have readers click on a dab page now and then. It's more disruptive to take them to the wrong article. Or do you prefer appearance over substance? We could have a pretty encyclopedia with no actual content--would that make you happy? — kwami (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If you're the person who has actually identified that the links are wrong, then you are better placed than anyone to actually fix them. Instead you create masses of dab pages byt don't actually fix the links. I would note that at least one of the dab pages you created managed not to include a link to the page which used to occupy the space. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding to complaints that we have X as a redirect to either X people or X language when both articles exist. I've gone through what links to several of these redirects, and seen that the links are often mixed, so that readers really are being taken to the wrong articles. Turning X into a dab page solves that problem. It may not be as elegant as correcting all the links, but a quick fix is better than nothing. I'm backlogged on hundreds of these improper redirects; fixing all the links as well would mean not having the time to fix what's actually wrong. (And BTW, I have fixed several thousands of such links, though not much recently.)
The choice, as I see it, is to direct the reader to the wrong article, or to a dab page. It's an obvious choice.
If I've screwed up, which you've alluded to but not linked to, by all means let me know and I'll clean it up. Or just revert me: misdirecting a few readers is less important than getting the rest of these done. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Zuni. You left a link to Zuni instead of changing it to Zuni people. I fixed it already, but as it was you left the dab page without a link to the commonest intended meaning. That helps no-one. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Darn. That was meant to be a helpful screw up. I'll try to improve the quality of my oversights. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On this topic, please don't leave a redirect behind for the talk pages of these newly-created disambiguation pages. I have had to replace the redirect with the disambiguation project tag multiple times. Logan Talk Contributions 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Macro-Gê languages[edit]

Thank you for your comment, indeed there are more macro-gê language maps in: Category:Macro-Je languages

Ah, thanks. All added to the articles. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvement in Template:IPA vowel chart/sandbox[edit]

Hi, I have changed the workings inside Template:IPA vowel chart, now visible in the sandbox. Could you give it a check? The trick is, that I use a subtemplate "Template:IPA vowel chart/vowelpair", which does the presentation & links for the pairs. -DePiep (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The only question I have goes for the original chart too: why do we have [e̞] but not [ø̞], [o̞], or [ɤ̞]? and why ‹e̞› instead of ‹ɛ̝›? — kwami (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The answer to that is simple: someone with "time and/or ambition" still has to bother to split these off from their respective close-mid vowel articles like [e̞] has been. As for the symbol, I think it's simply because ‹e̞› is more common. --JorisvS (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
First, we could put the symbols in there. But they should have a link to an article (through {{IPAsym}}). When there is no article (yet), linking to a sort of dab-page is imo not adding much wiki-wise. Now here's the new catch: the change now proposed in the sandbox ... does not allow for unlinked symbols ;-). Current links: [ø̞], [] or [ɤ̞] -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: copied the essence to Template talk:IPA vowel chart#Mid vowels. Sandbox now is into live template. -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkfixes. No errors left. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing Kurdish People[edit]

Why do you revert to the old and false information about kurdish peoples figure in turkey? Can't you face the truth that there are 20 million kurdish people in turkey as the article source I have given tell you too??

Here are the source: "There are perhaps up to 20 million Kurds in Turkey with a population of approximately 70 million."


damn00 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you did not give a source. You just said it's from a Swedish paper, but did not provide a link. Second, as we've told you, newspapers are not WP:reliable sources. Which source did the Swedish paper get that figure from? Find that source, and we'll be able to judge whether it's reliable or not.
(I have no idea if there are 10M Kurds in Turkey, or 20M, or 30M, but whichever figure we use, we need to be able to defend it against those who would challenge it.) — kwami (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

TomasBat 00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I like the 'random' part. Counterbalances the random trolls. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ChuShogiPromotions.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:ChuShogiPromotions.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Added the info. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Press-up article[edit]

In case you are on right now fellow Usonian, I have responded with the information you asked for at Talk:Press-up. Cute snake btw. AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Kwami, I'm afraid I accidentally overlooked your stated intent to close the Press-up WP:RM request. Please feel free to re-open it if you wish. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was considering wider policy which I thought supported a move, but wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything before I closed. I'll redo it. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the Hindi article? :-)[edit]

Wrt this edit: is the text in the earlier version of the Hindi article just lost? For instance, that version had a section on writing systems, a section on literature, etc., which the current article doesn't: surely these sections make sense for an article on the language? Is it ok to just copy over those sections, or something? Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There was general agreement on the talk page that when people say "Hindi", they generally mean the national language of India, and not the various other varieties that also go under the name Hindi. There weren't many participants, though, so feel free to start a discussion if you think the redirect should be reversed. Or if you just want those sections merged into Standard Hindi or Hindi-Urdu, you can go ahead and do that too. The literature section could be split between them; the writing system is already covered. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wasn't arguing about reversing the redirect… I too think that when people say "Hindi", they mean the national language of India, however defined. I was just saying that the article Hindi (or whatever it redirects to) ought to contain (brief) text on how Hindi is written, literature in Hindi, etc. Such sections existed in the old article, and I was wondering if it's ok to start adding such sections to the current article — asking you because you've followed the discussion and are aware of the several articles on the subject, which I'm not. [Added after edit: Ah fine, thanks; I'll merge them sometime.] Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I moved the stub to MSH, and added a section header to HU. It would be nice if HU would introduce the Hindi and Urdu lit articles. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Ali Pasha and his IPs seem hell bent on removing even the smallest traces of Serbo-Croatian on Croatian related articles. [1] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

...and the nonsense continues with suspicious user Hammer of Habsburg [2] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors[edit]

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm afraid I won't have a reliable amount of time to devote to it. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"History of Montenegrin language"[edit]

Our friend strikes again [3]. Would you kindly block him and/or semiprotect the article? Thanks. No such user (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to block someone for something like that. I did warn him over edit warring. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yeah, 3 years is a bit ridiculous for edit warring. Blocked. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You are creating redirects[edit]

Kwami. The many edits you have made, -- [[Māori people|Māori]] -- are creating redirects because your article title changes were reverted. Moriori (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A ref to the Maori language or Maori culture should link to our articles on the Maori language or the Maori culture. They should not link to our article on the Maori people. Thus "Maori" should be a redirect; links to the redirect can be cleaned up later (and as I have been doing today), as that's not a big deal. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You are doing this -----> [[Māori people|Māori]] but as there is no Māori people article you are creating a redirect from the articles to a page which is a redirect page. Moriori (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the article should be at Maori people, in which case the links should be redirected. Internal redirects to not create any problem. Linking to the wrong article does. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

IPA for Camille Paglia[edit]

Hello, Kwamikagami. I notice that you do a lot of IPA fixing. I wondered if you could help with the Camille Paglia article? Seed of Azathoth (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you can tell me a bit more than just that the gee is silent. First syllable like pale or like pal? I assume that's also the syllable that's stressed, which would most likely make it either /ˈpeɪliə/ or /ˈpæliə/. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It's pronounced PaHleAH, with the stress on the H and AH. So it should be as in "pal" rather than "pale." Seed of Azathoth (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the English pronunciation?? That would be odd indeed: /pɑːliˈɑː/, rhyming with hurrah. (And I don't understand how you could stress the H, unless you stress both a vowels, in which case it would be pronounced Pa-lee ah, with pa as in father. It wouldn't even be possible with the A's as in pal.) I'd want to see a ref or hear a recording before I'd be confident enough to put that in an article. — kwami (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
"Pa-lee ah" looks correct to me. The a definitely is not pronounced like the a in Sarah Palin's second name. Sorry if I'm not explaining it properly. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As in this video (0:20)? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be /ˈpɑːliə/, unless it sounds like Paul for those who make the cot-caught distinction, in which case it would be /ˈpɔːliə/ (which I believe Philadelphia does, and it didn't sound like Paul).
So, Azathoth, does it sound to you like either "Pa" plus -lia or "paw" plus -lia? Any one in particular? — kwami (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It sounds exactly like Pa plus lia to me; I don't hear a "paw" there. But listen to it and decide for yourself. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I pronounce them exactly the same, so I have to imagine what it would sound like if spoken by someone who doesn't say them the same, but that is the conclusion I came to. Which is /ˈpɑːliə/. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so should I add that to the article? Seed of Azathoth (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Just link it to the key with the {{IPA-en}} or {{pron-en}} template. — kwami (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Worth also adding the Italian pronunciation, which I think would be ['paʎa] or conceivably ['paʎja] (just two syllables in either case)? --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Does she ever use an Italian pronunciation? [ˈpaʎʎa], I suspect. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The gemination of medial ʎ mentioned on the IPA for Italian page is news to me. But then I did live in the North.... --Trovatore (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is /ˈpɑːliə/, and definitely NOT /ˈpɔːliə/. And no, she does not affect an Italian accent.μηδείς (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unbecoming edits[edit]

Please seek consensus before carrying out potentially disruptive edits such as your move of Māori, and your change of the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) in support of your position. You should be aware that an article which has existed at its current name for many years, and has a large number of links to it, should not be moved without a discussion. Despite this, you moved it without such discussion, and proceeded to change a substantial number of links, even after your move had been reverted (not by me). Your explanation was that you were not aware that the move had been reverted, although you were advised on your talk page. I note that you did stop making such redirects one you replied to the advisor.

Your explanation for the move was "vs. language", and later said on the talk page it was "per the MOS for ethnicity vs. language", and still later "Sorry, not the MOS, but naming conventions", but the guideline for language naming conventions appears to be fully adhered to for Māori language. It would appear that you did not have the MoS justification for the move that you thought you had.

You changed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), again without any attempt to seek consensus, and despite that the guideline applies to individual people rather than groups. When I pointed out that your edit was inappropriate, you decided to remove my edit twice, rather than to address the issue. You also gave me a block warning for pointing this out.

I think your edits on this issue are unbecoming of an admin. I do not think you are trying to harm the wiki, but you appear to have lost touch with Wikipedia's principles.-gadfium 07:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Gadfium, you've been here since 2004, so I'm rather puzzled that you are so unfamiliar with the way things work here. Inadvertently or not, you're also misrepresenting the situation.
As for discussion before editing, read WP:BOLD. Summary: make a major edit; if someone reverts it, discuss. That's exactly what happened here. BOLD was created so that edits don't become impossible because every correction has to go through committee before being implemented. I mean, look at the nonsense brewed up in this case: you can't move a page if that would leave redirects, but you can't fix redirects without moving the page.
I did not change the naming conventions to support my edit. The convention already existed, and has consensus. What I changed had to do with the use of the word "tribe", which is irrelevant to this case.
As for the guideline being in the wrong place, you have a point, but AFAIK the right place does not exist. Again, BOLD. But you don't deface pages with personal comments. I find it hard to believe that you've been here 7 years and don't know that's what the talk page is for. Of course I warned you for that, and especially for edit warring over it: that's the kind of behaviour that will get you blocked. (And no, that's not a threat. I wouldn't do it myself.)
Anyway, I think I've had enough with Māori. I'm taking it off my watchlist. The people there are just too weird.
kwami (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read Wikipedia:BOLD, and specifically the section Wikipedia:BOLD#...but please be careful. You moved the page Māori but according to your subsequent edits you had no idea of the policy behind the move. My point was that you should have used the talk page to discuss your move and your subsequent attempt to modify the guideline, but you threaten me with a block for pointing this out. I suggest that you remove your post to that page if you agree that the talk page is more appropriate.-gadfium 08:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully yourself. The caution is for disruptive edits, like deleting a template that transcludes to hundreds of articles. My edit disrupted nothing important: all it did was create links to a dab page, which can be taken care of easily enough, and which don't cause any real inconvenience, and which of course could be easily reverted, as it was.
Do I really need to say this a third time? I didn't threaten you with a block, I warned you that disruptive behaviour may get you blocked, which is true enough and which you still don't seem to understand. (If you had kept it up, I would have requested to have you blocked, and it would have been up to someone else to determine whether you deserved it.) And it wasn't because you disagreed with me, or because you pointed out something that enraged me, or because I'm part of some government conspiracy that involves black helicopters, but because you edit warred to disrupt the page. Do you honestly not understand that signing comments in articles, guidelines, & the like is not acceptable? And I should move which post to the talk page? I didn't make a post: you do understand the different between editing a page and commenting on it, don't you?
Anyway, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I've never encountered anyone who refused to understand the basics of editing here like this, certainly not someone who's been here as long as you have. So, unless you have something constructive to say, please stop. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I would love to stop. Please retract your edit to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and seek consensus first. If it is not approriate for me to post to a Wikipedia namespace page, why is it appropriate for you? Posting disagreements to article namespace is not appropriate, but you seem not to understand the difference in namespace. Telling me that you would have requested another editor block me rather than doing so yourself is so reassuring.-gadfium 08:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you clearly don't understand the difference between editing a page and commenting on it. The difference between articles (mainspace or not) and their talk pages is one of the fundamental concepts of any wiki. I'm posting the 'welcome' links on your talk page. Please don't take that as an insult: there is some good material in there, including some that may have changed since the last time you took a look at it, or perhaps some that didn't make sense at the time, and since you've been here since 2004, it's quite possible no-one ever posted it on your talk page, since you weren't a newbie when it was created. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Igbo groups[edit]

There are too many Igbo subdivisions to list right now. Some are tribes (e.g Izzi), some are remnants of old states (e.g Aro), some are citizens of a county (e.g Onicha), some are 'clans' and families (e.g Ubani), others are village groups (e.g Ngwa). The most simplified divisions are seen through the language dialects which the articles relating to this topic use. All the indicated groups use 'Igbo' in one way or another to identify themselves and their community, this is usually secondary to their subgroups identity. All of them have a strong underlying Igbo culture. Ukabia - talk 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ukabia. I'll keep a lookout for any references. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that recently you moved some guarani related articles for an appropriate naming without diacritic, I also tried to move Guaraní mythology to Guarani mythology (without diacritic), but I couldn't do it because a bot added some categories on the redirect page. Could you delete that redirect to make way for move? That word only has diacritic in the Spanish orthography, but not in the own Guarani writing system, neither according to Portuguese or English orthographic rules (Portuguese words ending with i or u mark stress on the last syllable), we should not use the Spanish orthography in the English Wikipedia.--Luizdl (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again, but could you please do the same with Guaraní Aquifer?--Luizdl (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Luizdl (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mandarin and AWB[edit]

If you really wish to save time, be careful when piping for a term (i.e. "Putonghua") that already is a re-direct to our little battleground article, such as this edit. Just some advice --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if we ever split that off as a separate article, it might be good to have a direct link. My AWB script isn't that sophisticated. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"Ever"? I see little reason to split it off, as "Putonghua" largely refers to the standard...i.e. this summer when I heard the term vs. Shandong dialect, which to say doesn't really exist as far as I have read --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
But if we think we're never going to split it off, why bother with the redirect? What's wrong with piping? — kwami (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing particularly wrong, but we are advised not to pipe when the re-direct exists. Whatever. Simply a matter of personal view. I am simply advising you to save time if you can, but apparently your AWB script won't be better for you. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but that guideline is there because we might want to split the rd off as a separate article, which probably won't happen here. (That is why I'm piping 'Standard Cantonese' in the links: if the Cantonese page ever moves again, it will be useful to have links to redirects.) — kwami (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
But note I am not commenting on Cantonese. Which reminds me that speakers may not necessarily speak "Standard Cantonese", but another dialect of the entire language/variety, which, in that case, requires linking to the article on Yue. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
True. I've changed it to Yue where I've noticed that. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

On a side note. (Apart from translation), Do you have the knowledge necessary to help me with the article I started on the Chengdu dialect, and in the future the Chongqing dialect? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I don't even have sources on those any more, not that they'd be anything you don't have anyway. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
See if you can't find A Government phonology Analysis of Chongqing Mandarin Chinese by Hayden Windrow. That might be helpful. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also this thought of mine only emerged a couple of days ago, but you could also consider replacing "Standard Mandarin" with "Putonghua". I have already done so on the PRC page, because that is what the Government officially says, and since so many non-Mandarin dialects are written in the City_hua form anyway, replacing with "Putonghua" shouldn't hurt in many cases. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


I didn't read all of that, but the issue is a simple one: if you write something that is challenged, it's up to you to provide the citations to demonstrate it. It really doesn't matter what you know, because we can't judge your competence. All we can judge the quality of your references.
But in the end you're right: if I doubt extraordinary claims that you present without evidence, it can only mean that I'm a racist. There's no other possible explanation. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cultures in standard cross-cultural sample[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Cultures in standard cross-cultural sample has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Another move fest[edit]

Well, I see you've resumed your mass undiscussed moves. I notice most of these are North American tribes, many of which seem primary over the languages. Considering how controversial these moves have proven, I would have thought you would start discussions before plowing ahead. But you aren't, so I'm asking you to stop, and start using WP:RM first. Otherwise, I'm going to have to start a report at WP:ANI, because I just don't see any other option. You've got one goal in sight, and are ignoring everything else to achieve it, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --JaGatalk 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like a move, revert it. 90% are uncontroversial, and don't cause any inconvenience. And if you think most of them are North American, you haven't been paying attention. I'm not going to post a request and wait a week for all of these articles when it's so easy to revert per WP:BOLD. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, forget it. I'm tired of dealing with this. Feel free to restructure WP any way you want, although I'm really interested in the 90% remark. If you were a responsible editor, you'd start a discussion for that 10% based on your new-found knowledge of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But I see your philosophy is to make drastic changes and let other people clean up after you - not just dablinks, but also ill-chosen pagemoves. Well, OK. That's how it will be then. --JaGatalk 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't predict which 10% some unknown editor might object to. You're saying that a responsible editor would never make an edit that anyone else would modify. If I could do that, we would never need discussion, because I could determine consensus on my own. Hardly how things work in the real world. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Telling us to undo the moves is patronising and unhelpful. As you would know if you had any knowledge of pagemoves, we can't do them without admin tools when there have been subsequent edits to the original title page. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the time there haven't been, so you can undo them. And it's hardly patronizing, it's simply following basic WP guidelines like WP:BOLD. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you have never previously been wrong about anything at all (to judge from your responses to various editors on this page), but please do try to open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong about pagemoves and dabbing. You certainly are doing nothing at all to promote a collaborative atmosphere, rather the opposite. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm wrong all the time, of course. I just can't predict when I'll be wrong. If I could, I'd never be wrong. I can't predict which page moves will prove contentious. Some I think will be, and which I do start discussions for, turn out not to be, and some I assume will be unproblematic cause people to go ballistic. But moving a page to a more specific name is not disruptive, so it doesn't matter: if the move is a problem, undo it, just like any other edit on WP. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I intend to undo any and all moves/changes you make to create dabpages from now on, because you have caused significant disruption to other editors by your actions in this area. It would be easier for everyone if you simply refrained from editing in this area, or even better entered into discussions bout the changes you want to make, but as you have repeatedly refused to do either of these things, I am left with no alternative. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't even about creating dab pages. That's not what JaGa was complaining about, and not what I've been doing today. Also, following people around undoing moves which are not problematic is itself disruptive. If you undo moves, it needs to be because the move is undesirable, not because you have a personal problem with the editor. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with your edits. You have been repeatedly asked to desist, and you have repeatedly been asked to discuss first rather than going ahead with vast numbers of moves. You have repeatedly refused to do either. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm following WP guidelines. If you don't like it, get the guidelines changed. A few have proven contentious, and those have generally been reverted. The rest aren't bothering anybody, so what's your problem with them?
If I had a problem with some of your edits, and demanded that you clear everything you wanted to do before you did it, would you comply? But if you can convince the WP community that this is the way to do things around here, I will go along. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh forget it - I was just now trying to fix the mess you made of Blackfoot, but the trail of moves and redirects is too confusing. When you leave histories that make it hard for anyone to understand just what you were trying to do, you make it impossible for anyone to "just undo" you - and you make it much harder for the editors who actually do want correct links instead of dablinks. There's a whole fucking wikiproject of people who actually enjoy fixing dablinks, but instead of engaging with us and getting our help you seem intent on antagonising and exasperating us as much as you possible can. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that must be the motivation: antagonizing a wikiproject I wasn't aware existed.
Blackfoot is a mess, that's for sure. We had two articles, 'Blackfoot' and 'Blackfeet', on different topics, and the links to them had little to do with which was which, so it's completely screwed up. You won't find many like that, though, and anyway, it was screwed up before I got to it. Yeah, I'm trying to fix it too, but it's a headache. (Oh forget it. It's generally impossible to tell which 'Blackfeet' are intended. Linking to the dab page may be the best bet.) — kwami (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you have been referred to the wikiproject before, so unless you deliberately weren't reading the comments on this page, you should have been aware of it by now. You woulf also have found out about it by looking at the talk pages of many dab pages, which have a nice template linking to it. Or, indeed, by reading the guidelines about dabbing, which I do elieve mention the project. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've also made this edit to Talk:Blackfeet. It is rather unhelpful for the talk page to be redirected to a different article than the main page attached to it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Kwami, don't you see what you're doing? WP:BOLD wasn't written so you could do a half-assed job and say "meh, if I did something wrong, someone else will fix it". It's intended as an encouragement for new, uncertain editors, not administrators with over 100,000 edits. You're just hiding behind BOLD to justify lazy edits.

Sure, we'll fix your screw-ups when we find them. But we won't find all of them, so some mistakes will sit around indefinitely. How does that improve the wiki? Do it right the first time. Stop using WP:BOLD to justify the easy way out; do due diligence, think about the changes you're making, make sure another disambig doesn't already exist, make sure you format your disambig properly, apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and if you aren't 100% certain put it at WP:RM. It may take longer but it will avoid some of the messes you've been piling up of late. --JaGatalk 04:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think I'd find all of them? That's the thing with screw-ups: If I noticed them, I wouldn't make them. And the only mess I've been notified of is that a page move failed to carry the talk page along with it (happens occasionally, I still don't know why), and that I fixed, not you. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I fixed several talk pages which your move-fest left pointing in the wrong direction, you only fixed the one that you had made too much of a mess of for me to do - and then only after it was pointed out to you, as you hadn't bothered to check your moves after making them. And as for "that's the thing with screw ups" - if you were more willing to discuss changes first and ask for help, you'd be less likely to make them. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I forgot that the talk pages don't always move as they're supposed to. If you had told me, I would've been happy to do it myself. — kwami (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Blackfoot Confederacy[edit]

Talk:Blackfoot Confederacy now this is a real mess - it currently redirects to Talk:Blackfoot, but there is an article at Blackfoot Confederacy. Is there any content that should be at Talk:Blackfoot Confederacy? The history of pagemoves and redirects is far too confusing for me to work out, though I suspect that the content currently at Talk:Blackfoot is what should be at Talk:Blackfoot Confederacy. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forget that the talk pages sometimes don't follow their articles. I'll take care of it. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Your suspicion was correct. That should do it. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Your usual problem with the talk page. Please fix. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not a usual problem: there are two talk pages for one article. Either one can be left on a redirect, or one needs to be archived. But agreed that it should be addressed. — kwami (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A merge would be in order. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages of your new dab pages[edit]

Please do not leave the talk pages of your newly-created dab pages as redirects to the talk page of wherever you moved the article content. The talk page of a dab page should be tagged with {{tl:WikiProject Disambiguation}}. See, for example, Talk:Haida. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. — kwami (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Pagemove help[edit]

I've asked if anyone could give you a masterclass on moving talkpages properly, as it does seem to be causing you difficulty. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Usually they move without a problem; I'm unclear why that sometimes fails. Usually when a talk page can't move automatically there's some notification of the fact. — kwami (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Some editors like to check after making a pagemove to see if the talk page has moved too. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Just a comment about some of your moves of standalone indigenous names to "+people" some cases this will be redundant....I'm not actually sure what "Haida" means in the Haida language, it could include the meaning "people". Nuu-chah-nulth doesn't (it means "along the outside (of Vancouver Island) and in its proper state in that language would have the -aht suffice, meaning "people". Kwakwaka'wakw already implies "people" as it means "speakers of Kwak'wala". But names like Nlaka'pamux, St'at'imc, Skwxwu7mesh and Secwepemc and Tahltan and Tsilhqot'in already include morphemes meaning "people", likewise Skokomish and Duwamish (-mesh, -mish, -imc, -emc in Salishan, -tan and -t'in in Athapaskan are all "people" suffixes). Not that English convention doesn't habitually attach "people" to these far "we" have made a point (among NorthAmNative members) of not adding them; the convention so far has been to use the native name for the ethno article, the anglo name, more often than not (with some exceptions, such as St'at'imc Nation vs Lillooet Tribal Council, which are both official names for the same body), are used for the government names, and since...someone...came along, also for their languages e.g. Lillooet language instead of St'at'imcets. We really need to come up with a NativeMOS guideline, however....hopefully you noticed the CfR about "Native American" categories which shouldn't be called that...(in the Feb 1 CfDs).Skookum1 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have a Wikipedia policy for naming these entities--common English usage per WP:NCON. Since common English usage is Lillooet for the language (at least), that is the name that should be retained for the article. --Taivo (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A policy of "X" for the people and "X language" for the language would be fine, even if that means that Amerindian languages are treated differently than Eurasian langs. Is there a discussion where that was contemplated? We do generally have the convention of not appending 'people' or 'language' to names which are used for specifically one or the other.
Whether or not X̣ayda contains the meaning of 'people' in Haida, Haida doesn't in English.
One reason for moving is that links are commonly made blindly, and if "X" is a dab page, all future blind links would end up there, where they belong. Of course, in the case of America that may well be an acceptable trade-off. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive and completely grammatically uncorrect application of WP:DASH. Now.[edit]

"Pre-main star" and "Post-World War II" and similar things do NOT warrant an ndash by any stretch of the imagination. It's gonna take a while to clean up your mess. Please stop it now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You change the guideline, and then berate me for following it? Screw you. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what you're doing with these dashes is just grammatically wrong. Please stop. Johnlp (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
How is it wrong? Check the Chicago Manual of Style or any of many many others: the CMOS even gives "pre–World War II" (or is it "post–World War II"?) as an example. En dashes for prefixing open compounds has been standard for a century or more. — kwami (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've worked in these areas for the best part of 50 years: US usage of dashes rather than hyphens is different, but it is not a world standard. In most of the rest of the world, a dash would be used only to imply an extent or connection between two items, as in 1904–05, where the dash might be replaced by the word "to", and not the simple joining of two words to form a compound or to add a prefix. To impose a US style on articles written outside the US and with no US connection is not right. Johnlp (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's hardly the same as being "grammatically wrong", as you put it. I was under the impression that it wasn't just a US standard. However, if it is, you might want to provide some refs for the MOS discussion.
(How would they handle "the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate" is the UK?) — kwami (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"The anti/pro conscription debate", or even better "the conscription debate". DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
On second thoughts, "the pro/anti" rather than "anti/pro". For always wants to come before against in my experience. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but if someone said "the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate", and you were transcribing it, how would you punctuate it? — kwami (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"The anti-conscription/pro-conscription debate". DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes sense. — kwami (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the relevant sections from the Oxford University Press style guide, as set down in the Oxford Writers' Dictionary.


(a) The en rule (–) is used:

1. To join pairs wherever movement or tension, rather than co-operation or unity (for which use hyphen) is felt, e.g. ‘1914–18 war’ (but ‘from 1914 to 1918’), ‘current–voltage characteristic’, ‘the Fischer–Spassky match’, ‘the London–Horsham–Brighton route’, ‘the Marxist–Trotskyite split’ (but ‘the Marxist-Leninist position’ (hyphen)). Note also ‘Franco-Prussian War’ (hyphen, because ‘Franco-‘ is a prefix which cannot stand alone).

2. For joint authors (hyphen would lead to confusion with a single double-barrelled name), e.g. ‘the Lloyd–Jones hypothesis’ (two men), ‘the Lloyd-Jones hypothesis’ (one man), ‘the Lloyd-Jones–Scargill talks’ (two men).

[There are other sections about the use of em dashes and two-em dashes, which OUP uses even more sparingly, mostly to indicate omitted or repeated text in, for example, bibliographies.]


This is used:

1. To join two or more words so as to form a single expression, e.g. ear-ring, get-at-able, and words having a syntactical relationship which form a compound, as weight-carrying (objective), punch-drunk (instrumental); and in a compound used attributively, to clarify the unification of the sense, e.g. a blood-red hand, the well-known man, but prettily furnished rooms, the man is well known (predicative).

2. To join a prefix to a proper name, e.g. anti-Darwinian.

3. To prevent misconceptions by linking words, e.g. a poor-rate collection, a poor rate-collection.

4. To prevent misconceptions by separating a prefix from the main word, e.g. recover, re-cover (an umbrella); (a footballer) resigns, re-signs.

5. To separate two similar consonant or vowel sounds in a word, as a help to understanding and pronunciation, e.g. sword-dance, Ross-shire...

6. To represent a common second element in all but the last word of a list, e.g. two-, three- or fourfold.

As usual with OUP thoroughness/pedantry, it also has specific styles for particular words: so in the dictionary part it specifies "pre-war" and "post-war" with hyphens and no capitals (though if the "War" was capitalised, it would be a hyphen under the second point of the "hyphen" section quoted above anyway). I'd be pretty confident other UK/Australian/Indian style guides would be similar on this: with the "post-war" example, they'd if anything tend to have no hyphen in preference to any en dash, which I have simply never seen in standard usage except under the conditions outlined above. Feel free to transplant this into the MOS discussion if you want.

For what it's worth, what User:DuncanHill writes above makes perfect sense to me: I'd never use an en dash in these circumstances, but I just might use an oblique. Johnlp (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've found some variation in US style guides: some only list these functions, some only list the compounded compound type (generally these are the more basic or introductory guides), and some list both. I found an Oxford guide that described the compounded compound usage as well, but it may have been intended for the US.
BTW, "pre-war" and "post-war" are US usage too: the en dash only comes in with open compounds, "pre–World War" and "post–World War", to show that we're talking about before/after the war, and not before/after the world. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps on this side of the Atlantic we rely a little more on the commonsense of the reader! Johnlp (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe! ;)
But with more obscure, technical, or ad hoc compounds, parsing can get difficult without some way of disambiguating. In speech, prosody takes care of it, so people may use spoken expressions that writing-style guides would advise against.
(Personally, I find it easy to parse the scope of a prefix if it isn't capitalized and the open-compound stem is, but when everything is capitalized I've sometimes found myself puzzled. Can't think of a good example offhand, though.) — kwami (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this now. This is not English, not helpful to the encyclopedia. These are rules of thumb; not to be followed blindly against usage - as you are doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, WTF are you doing? re the CSRD?[edit]

I'm reverting that (Comox-Strathcona Regional District); the reason it wasn't included in the RM (and RM2) at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District is because it was already properly hyphenated, as per all sources and because it's a hyphenated name. I thought you were one of the good guys, dude.Skookum1 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if I screwed up, sorry. I was going on the other compound BC districts. If they aren't a valid comparison, then revert it, or ask me and I'll revert it. Don't have a cow, man!
I wasn't aware of that discussion, but many of the participants seem to have no idea what they're talking about. They're using govt web pages as a source? Ridiculous: html punctuation is grossly simplified and should not be used as a typographic guide. — kwami (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
BCGNIS and CGNDB are records of official names, they're not merely html; they also use French characters, and often special FN characters. Hansard, which is typeset (and on-line, reproduced according to the style guides of the Provincial Secretary - or Speaker of the House, not sure which - and the Queen's Printer - use the hyphen, as do the publications (including PDFs) of both the provincial government and the regional districts themselves (the RDs are "creatures" of the provincial tier of government, not federal btw), use the hyphen. They're also all geographic proper names, not "and/or" constructions as they people who really don't know what they're talking about averred in the first RM (note the support tally in the 2nd one), and as proper names and being hyphenated, they should remain hyphenated (and should never have been dashed just because some typography-happy twit some countries, even oceans away, decided that they were "and" constructions, which they're most definitely not. I just went through 10-12 pages of the move log to revert it, and can't find it. The reason I'm testy about this is because it was from the Alberni-Clayoquot RM that the Poland-Lithuania one in all its inanity and arrogance and time-consuming nonsense grew, and the related MOS debates. "Consensus" of the uninformed is just that; uninformed; that WP:MOSFOLLOW was ignored throughout is most aggravating; using the excuse, as you have again here, that they're "only" HTML discounts the - gee, what do you know - the possibility that government systems people (BC Systems, which sets standards for BC government websites, and BCGNIS itself) were typographical imbeciles incapable of being sophisticated like holier-than-thou MOSites in Britain or wherever the lot of them came from; they're hyphenated names just like Henley-on-Thames or Baden-Baden; someone also tried to change provincial park names recently, for the same bad reason, but they also are mandated by legislation, typeset legislation (available variously online in PDF and in HTML) and in all government publications as hyphenated. One dash-happy twit said "we don't do official names, what we do is typography" - which is a crock of shit.Skookum1 (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, those sound like good refs. There's a difference between attributive usage (X-Y Z) and not-attributives like the MOS example of Guinea-Bissau, but if there are no examples of professionally typeset publications which use en dashes in these names, then I concur that we shouldn't use them based solely on a superficial reading of the style guides.
There is one I pointed out, though, where do I think the en dash should be retained ("Regional District of Fraser-Fort George"), because using a hyphen produces a misparsing of the name: it makes it look as if "Fraser-Fort" is an element of the name. The same is true of "Ed Bird-Estella Lakes Provincial Park"; that looks as though it's named after some guy named "Ed Bird-Estella". That, of course, is regardless of whether the other names should be hyphenated. — kwami (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
that's a garbage argument, based in some notion that your deconstruction of a proper name has anything to do with reality and with MOSFOLLOW or CANMOS or COMMONNAME. Fully-capitalized names are proper names and when parts of them are hyphenated, they're still proper names. Unless as a linguist you somehow are going to claim that "Lakes" is a name all by itself and not connected to either the word before it or the word after. You may know your IPA but you clearly have no regard at all for normal syntax or with what is used by the local govenrment which established these names. Here is a link to the Ministry of Forests Library search window which includes links to other government libraries, and also will search the whole of the BC Govt database, go look for regional districts, and for that park, and limit it to Hansard (which is typeset) and PDFs and DOCs (which are typeset); if you want write the Queen's Printer in Victoria, or call up BC Systems, and tell them you know better than they do. You're rattling on about nosense and it's really really disruptive; we were finally getting close to having the proper usage restored, and you had to come in and play spoiler. someone piss in your cornflakes or what?? You don't know better than the sources, or someone actually from the place you're passing judgement on what's best for us "because Wikipedia knows best" etc...typography is given WP:UNDUE weight over reality in Wikipedia, far too much, and by creating new paradigms you are re-inventing reality rather than reflecting it. I'm shocked at your behaviour, and your asinine arguments over this. I really don't know what's come over you, frankly.....Skookum1 (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's 3:22 am in my timezone (PST) and I would have been in bed an hour ago if not for your friggin' nonsense.....what a waste of time Wikipedia is turning into because of inane arguments by ill-informed and pretentious people!!.Skookum1 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, here I am agreeing with you apart from one remaining concern, and again you fly off the handle. Come back after you get some sleep.
(Speaking of which, I should go to bed myself.) — kwami (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cycling teams and WP:ENDASH[edit]

Hi, I noticed you moved An Post–Sean Kelly on the basis of WP:ENDASH. On a previous occasion, it was decided that cycling team names don't meet the requirements of WP:ENDASH - see the discussion here. Thanks, SeveroTC 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't a case of 'disjunction' vs 'conjunction' (an unfortunate choice of words), or, more relevantly, a junction of two names as opposed to a single hyphenated name, but due to the spaces in the names: An Post–Sean Kelly means [An Post]+[Sean Kelly], which is what we intend, whereas An Post-Sean Kelly would suggest a single person with a middle name of "Post-Sean". (Well, not too hard to figure out, but it makes it difficult to read, which we don't want.)
A lot of the linking articles also used hyphens with spaces, which is just a quick substitute for en dashes.
Anyway, I've gone through almost all of the links, so I might as well finish up for consistency; they can be reversed if the article is. — kwami (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a genuine problem but simply replacing a hyphen with an endash does not solve it. Some people will accept An-Post–Sean-Kelly with two different marks; but that is only acceptable in some forms of English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, AFAIK it does solve it. Dashes work the same for open compounds as they do for hyphenated compounds. Also, AFAIK there's general agreement on not hyphenating proper names for things like "An-Post–Sean-Kelly". — kwami (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Varieties of Chinese/content fork[edit]

It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a sandbox page or an old article; either way, it doesn't belong in articlespace. If you don't want it in your own userspace, then perhaps you can find a WikiProject that will adopt it — but it has to be kept out of articlespace regardless. If it's left in articlespace, then it'll merely get redirected back to the parent article, because we don't keep multiple forks of one article in active production and no page can ever, ever be left sitting in articlespace without a content category on it. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So what do we do with article history we don't want to delete, but can't merge?
It certainly doesn't belong on my user page. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving "x cell carcinoma" to "x-cell carcinoma"[edit]

I see that you have been moving many pages to a hyphenated form. This is not appropriate. This webpage (PubMed) lists medical journal articles with "small-cell carcinoma" in the title. You will see that the overwhelming majority are not hyphenated. Similarly for basal cell carcinoma. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but WP is a reference work, not a journal. Medical journals assume that their readers know the terms, and in such cases hyphens tend to be dropped. Reference works cannot assume that, and so need to be precise; you'll notice that among reference works, hyphens are much more common. One of the primary concerns here is that we not rely overmuch on jargon, and logical hyphenation is one small step in doing that. (Similarly, our guidelines specify that we use logical punctuation with quotations, even if that contradicts the national style the article is written in.) — kwami (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am taking this issue to WikiProject Medicine. Please comment there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A number of us request that you move these terms back. The hyphens do not look good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"Looking good" is not the point: a huge number of reliable sources use logical hyphenation, and this helps our readers. These terms are difficult to read without hyphenation unless you are already familiar with the subject, and we need to assume that our readers are not familiar with it. Even COMMONNAME states that when several names are in use by RSs, we need to consider clarity and precision, not just percentages. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

dashes in names[edit]

If you think you're going to carry out your own vendetta against WP's established style, think carefully before proceeding. It will cause a lot of trouble if you continue. Tony (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't. This is established style: precision, as befitting a reference work. We should say what we mean, not what only initiates to the field will understand us to mean. Besides, the en-dash thing is up for discussion, and I haven't been doing anything with it while that's proceeding. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Accurate IPA pronunciation guides for English?[edit]

I would like to know how you can make so accurate pronunciation guides. Especially I would like to know how you can tell when the vowels /ɨ/ and /ʉ/ should be used, as most dictionaries don’t include them in their pronunciation guides. I understand that these two vowels are not used in all dialects of English including American, but are nevertheless recommended to be used in Wikipedia’s pronunciation guides to make them more universal. An example of a pronunciation guide including the /ɨ/ vowel can be found in for example the article of the Adriatic Sea /ˌeɪdriˈætɨk/.

Thank you for answering in advance.

Nxghzt (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Related, just now: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#CanEng_IPA.2Flinguist.28s.29_needed.Skookum1 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Nxghzt, there's certainly some variation in the transcriptions, and sometimes it's a judgement call. Some dictionaries would mark the i in -ic with secondary stress if it weren't reduced, so the lack of a stress mark indicates it's reduced /ɨ/. Similarly, an American dictionary which marks final /i/ with secondary stress may correspond to a British dictionary with /iː/, while American final /i/ without stress may correspond to British final /ɪ/. But usage of 2ary stress to mark unreduced vowels in American dictionaries seems to be somewhat sporadic. Also, if an Australian dictionary has /ə/, then it's clearly a reduced vowel and should be /ɨ/ rather than /ɪ/ (as in the 'California' example you had). This might be something we need to hash out more explicitly.
Sookum, I answered your post there. I'm afraid it turned into a bit of an essay, and even so I'm not sure I gave my opinion (and what I've seen across thousands of articles) on all of your concerns rather than on peripheral issues that often come up in such discussions, but which you might not have intended. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


A couple of points:

  • "Not necessary to include" does not mean "necessary to exclude". I seen nothing in WP:NOT that would apply directly here.
  • "Fix" does not mean "remove", and so an edit summary of "Fix IPA" is directly misleading when applied to an edit which removes the IPA outright. You did this twice ([4], [5]). Please read Wikipedia:Edit summary carefully; it contains a number of salient suggestions.

Perhaps your arguments would be better received if you gave some details. If you wish to assert that the source (the OED, of all things) has been misinterpreted, then you need to provide some details in order to be taken seriously. In this instance, the source seems pretty straightforward. I trust you will revert your edits and replace a perfectly valid piece of well-cited information that was needlessly removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, WP is not a dictionary. We don't include pronunciations of everyday words such as this. Second, while the OED pronunciation is fine, it uses a different pronunciation key than you linked to. E.g. your British pronunciation included an undefined vowel, one different from the CAT vowel; the reasonable assumption would be that it's the FATHER vowel, which it is not. Also, there is no difference between the UK and US pronunciations apart from accent, so it is misleading to give them separately as if they were different. If you really need to give a pronunciation, you can use what my copy of the OED has, /ˈmætək/.
As for the edit summary, I'm scanning 12,000 articles. Usually they only require a minor touchup, but occasionally I delete incorrect pronunciations when they are unnecessary. If I were to change the summary for that, I'd likely forget to change it back, and tag a hundred minor corrections as deletions. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not specifically exclude pronunciations. Wikipedia is not paper, and does not have limited space. The pronunciations I included were far down the article in a specific etymology section, not in the lead, so their presence cannot be considered distracting. "Mattock" is not such an everyday word for most people; there could reasonably be doubts about pronunciation (stress on the second syllable, perhaps?), and giving only a single IPA representation would be to bias the article towards either British English or American English. What reason do you have, other than a dogmatic assertion that "we don't include...", to believe that their presence is in any way harmful? Since you have a correct version, why not simply include that, rather than deleting them?

Number of edits does not excuse misleading edit summaries. If you cannot keep up with your rate of editing, then you should probably slow down to a level where you can give meaningful edit summaries. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, giving a single transcription is less biased. You exclude everyone but Brits and Yanks; the single transcription includes nearly everyone. (Well, maybe not Scots.)
As for WP:NOT, it is frequently cited to remove pronunciations that can be found in a small dictionary. But it's not the pron so much as the fact that it was wrong. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's wrong and you have a version that is not wrong (as you profess to have), replace the wrong version with the right one! Do not simply remove it. And no, providing transcriptions in the two major variants of English is pretty inclusive; including only one is by definition less inclusive. Regardless of what WP:NOT is frequently purported to mean, it does not appear to actually contain anything of relevance here. I see no reason not to include a pronunciation for an unfamiliar word, particularly in a section devoted to etymology, and the source I cited from is perfectly reliable as an authority on the English language. If you have no further reason for your mislabelled deletions, I will restore the information. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One is by definition more inclusive, but that doesn't really matter. I gave you the correct transcription if you wish to use it. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And then when I use it, you remove it with, again, no good explanation (cf. WP:1RR). What are you doing? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You labeled it a reversion, but you did make a partial correction. I didn't notice that. I've reverted myself and fixed the rest. — kwami (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"I gave you the correct transcription if you wish to use it" is an evident invitation. Snubbing someone for acting on it seems needlessly spiteful. Please try to explain further if you can, but if you have no further arguments to present, then I can only asusme that there is indeed no reason for the deletion, and that the IPA can be restored. You cannot both insist on deletion and fail to satisfactorily explain the deletion. (And no, what you have given so far is clearly not satisfactory.) --Stemonitis (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, this still isn't right. You state that "it's pronounced that way everywhere", which is patently untrue. The OED gives two pronunciations, clearly indicating that two pronunciations exist. I trust the OED more than a Wikipedia edit summary, and I do not understand why this is so troublesome for you. A very reliable source says something straightforward; why are you contesting it? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the OED website, today, gives

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatək/ , U.S. /ˈmædək/

I think that's pretty clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we were to use their IPA conventions. But we don't. The OED is giving the pronunciation in two different accents, but it's the same pronunciation. Here on WP we ignore such details. This is explained at the top of the IPA key you linked your transcription to. — kwami (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that explanation would have been useful a few days ago. Problem solved. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought I did. Sorry I wasn't clear. — kwami (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life issues[edit]

Just wanted to drop you a note because I saw you moved Mark Harrington (anti-abortion activist) from pro-life to anti-abortion, I agree with you that its more precise, but unfortunately consensus seems to be against it per the move discussion currently in progress at Talk:Pro-life. Just wanted to give you a heads up that you might take some flack for that move, particularly if the move discussion at pro-life is unsuccessful. WikiManOne 02:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with infoboxes...?[edit]

kwami, this may be a strange question :), but would you happen to know where or who I can ask for assistance with the Template:Infobox military conflict? It seems no matter what I do on Croatian War of Independence the right column always takes up 2/3 of infobox width (instead of 1/2). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask on the talk page of the template. If that doesn't work, on the talk pages of the people who've recently modified it significantly. (Going to dinner, so I don't have a minute right now myself.) — kwami (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Irymple, Victoria[edit]

Hi. Can you look at the the IPA and respelling for Irymple, Victoria please It is pronounced EYE-rimple. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. There was just an extra pipe in the respelling template. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


You do realize that the definition "fins and scales" is the kosher dietary one and has no basis in science - it would make sea turtles and penguins into fish, as a matter of fact. I have been trying to come up with a definition myself, there really isn't any objective one. In the meantime, trying to fix that article piecemeal is like putting lipstick on a pig.μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to at least get rid of the self contradictions.
Perhaps the OED definition will help:
In popular language, any animal living exclusively in the water; primarily denoting vertebrate animals provided with fins and destitute of limbs; but extended to include various cetaceans, crustaceans, molluscs, etc. In modern scientific language (to which popular usage now tends to approximate) restricted to a class of vertebrate animals, provided with gills throughout life, and cold-blooded; the limbs, if present, are modified into fins, and supplemented by unpaired median fins.
Except in the compound shell-fish, the word is no longer commonly applied in educated use to invertebrate animals.
As a start, I'll remove 'scales' and add 'gills'. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish people[edit]

A solution needs to be found quickly, please re-join discussion at Talk:Kurdish people#Turkish Propaganda. Kermanshahi (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

edit at Cajun[edit]

Whats you're thoughts on this edit? I don't know enough about this stuff to know if its accurate or a vandal screwing with us. Thanks! Heiro 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's reasonable. The tie bar just means liaison: the /z/ is part of the previous word but is pronounced as part of the following word. However, that's really a phonemic concept, or a typographical one, and we've provided a phonetic transcription; it's hard to argue how [z] (in brackets) behaves that way. Another solution would be to just remove the spacing between the words altogether. But I'm not too familiar with how liaison is transcribed in phonetic vs phonemic transcriptions. — kwami (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Inuinnaq dialect[edit]

Hi kwami. I don't know if you're watching this page, but if you aren't, you might be interested in the move discussion going on there. --JorisvS (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I think Category:Newark_Pepper should be restored, Category:Newark_Peppers should be deleted, and then Category:Newark_Pepper should be moved to Category:Newark_Peppers. Minor detail, but the page history was lost on the wrong category page. No biggie, but that was the purpose of fixing the c&p move. Rgrds. (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not able to move categories. I don't know if s.o. else is, but the only thing in its history is a quick creation by a bot. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kx'a languages[edit]

Kwami, there appears to be a bum or confusing reference. Looking at the on-line journals from my university, the Journal of Asian and African Studies is only at volume 45 and contains no such article as the Heine et al. article you cited at Kx'a languages. --Taivo (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong. De Gruyter lists it,[6] and I linked to an online pdf. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I see the problem now. There are two Journal of Asian and African Studies. The one you've linked to is (Tokyo) and the one I looked at is (Leiden). This needs to be specified. --Taivo (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One more RD name to fix[edit]

I have no idea how to find it in the move log, it's a couple of weeks ago now; can you change Comox–Strathcona Regional District to its proper form now please? I'm about to start the speedy-category change, since Good Olfactory hasn't done it yet.Skookum1 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know why I missed that. Done. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is a pronunciation of her name: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPray20 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Can you take a look at Karen, Karen (name) and Karen (disambiguation)? The consensus on the talk page at Karen is that the article should not be a hodgepodge and the name should not be given priority. If you would make Karen a redirect to the disambiguation page and put the relevant material from it about the name under the article Karen (name) this would execute the consensus view. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Put the people first on the dab page. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena[edit]

Kwamikagami , could you take a look at the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page? User Symbio04 has reverted all my edits, without justifying his actions. There were several reverts by other editors to Symbio's edits. I do not want to get involved into edit waring and I do not know what to do in this case. Since you have issued a warning to Symbio04 in the past, for this particular article, I thought I could tell you. GoingToPluto (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you GoingToPluto (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a little hard to follow, but it looks like you restored the article back to here. I'm assuming you did it to back out many improper edits, but at the same time, you also backed out reasonable edits (like mine). Do I have to redo them, or is there an easier way? I don't really have any special interest in the article, but it's never fun to lose work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I deleted your work. Once I accounted for the COI edits, the rest seemed relatively minor, so I didn't pay them much attention. If you don't want to redo them (they're still there to copy, after all), I'll try to do it. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to do it tomorrow. I'm tired and am about ready to sign off. You don't need to worry about it. I just glanced at them, and, you're right, it won't be that hard.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I did not know this. I guess there is no way to just revert an older bad edit and keep a good but more recent one. GoingToPluto (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Not if they overlap. Then you need to correct manually. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Kwami. Nice catch on Gerund, but I think this is a step too far. I think there is a school of traditional grammar in which "subject" and "verb" must each be one word, but pretty much since the days of phrase-structure grammar (c. 1950s) NPs have been identified as subjects, and that is the standard analysis today. I think you had it right in the previous edit: the subject of "Eating this cake is easy" is the non-finite clause NP "eating this cake". Do you disagree? Cnilep (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. We're imposing categories which might or might not make sense in other contexts. Basically I'm saying the head of the clause is the subject ('eating is easy'), but sure, you could argue that's a different sentence and so only the clause as a whole is. Feel free to revert. Or maybe we could use 'eating is easy' to illustrate why the clause is the subject. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've very briefly summarized this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Gerund. You may want to verify that I haven't misrepresented your point. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I was interested in your edit to the pronounciation of York on the page of that name that relates to the place in Yorkshire, England. I was wondering if you had a reference to support the claim that a rhotic R is present in the pronunciation of the York? In my reasonably extensive, though not comprehensive, experience, the R is pronounced neither by the locals nor in an RP accent. Unfortuntately, I do not have a reference to support my opinion. Yours, almost-instinct 22:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no need for that edit. Everyone knows how to pronounce "York", so there is no need for a pronunciation apart perhaps for the local one. AFAIK, the local pronunciation has been non-rhotic for half a century or more. I've reverted myself. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that! almost-instinct 10:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Images from Commons[edit]

The reason for deletion is that the categorisation should be at Commons, and removal of the local description page (the image will still show up), helps separate images on Commons and thus acceptable from a licensing perspective, from those images locally that are not.

I have asked about this at least twice, and was told there was no problem in flagging up locally categorised commons images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

General Chinese[edit]

Thanks for all the work on the General Chinese article; can I encourage you to do some more? I still cannot find a publicly available copy of the book. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University has a copy but they won't let me look at it. m.e. (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The part I have yet to do is much more involved that the rest, and I don't know if I'll have time to get to it. Do you have any specific questions I could answer? — kwami (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The link requires a 会员名 and a 密码 unfortunately. One obvious question, is the book in English or Chinese? m.e. (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are extensions that can get around that sometimes, but I don't have anything in Chinese.
Bilingual on facing pages, or in tables. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Shoshone language > Shoshoni language[edit]

Kwami, I proposed this move a week ago and no one has objected. I can't move it myself since Shoshoni language already exists as a redirect. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Also moved Shoshone to Shoshoni people to match. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Moving the people article wasn't necessary because, perversely, the language is spelled "Shoshoni", but the tribal names are all "Shoshone". Unless someone gripes, however, the people article can stay at Shoshoni people since each of the tribes has its own page. --Taivo (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
They're close enough in spelling that it won't matter if we move it again. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The growing convention would be that the most common English form is used, not a native-"custom spelling" rooted in modernized orthography for that language (as is any romanization for any such language). Ethno articles and language articles already follow different paradigms for that (partly established by kwami), e.g. Nlaka'pamux and Thompson language, Secwepemc and Shuswap language etc. Not always cf. Okanagan people where the Okanagan language redirect goes to Okanogan-Colville (or is it Colville-Okanogan?); the ethno-correct version of the ethnonym is Syilx but this is not well-established in local English as are Secwepemc and St'at'imc etc. NB all three of Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc and St'at'imc include "people" in their morphemes so adding "people" would be redundant except it's true that constructions like "St'at'imc people" and "Nlaka'pamux people" are common. I'm not sure what's become of Wuikyala, which might redirect (now) to Rivers Inlet language, its better-known-in-linguistics form. Do we need a standard/convention? Maybe - but in English the regular most-common construction for the item in question would seem to be "Shoshone language", though maybe that's changed in recent years....Skookum1 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
We try to stick to a common name for the people and language where possible. I'm not convinced the Shoshoni move was warranted, but that can be taken up on the talk page if anyone objects. — kwami (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Skookum, Shoshoni is the most common, indeed the only, form used in linguistic work over the last 40 years and is the form used by the two publishing linguists who are native speakers. I don't really mind whether the "people" article is at Shoshoni or Shoshone since that's not my interest area. But "Shoshoni" is the modern and most common spelling for the language. --Taivo (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

South Caucasian Languages[edit]

Dear Kwami, it seems that the discussion on renaming the aforementioned article has been decided in our favor - 4 supporting votes, and 1 opposing vote from a user who does not appear to be engaged in any further discussion. I think it is time to request that the move discussion be closed but I do not know how to place that request. While I realize that you as one of the parties of the discussion cannot close it yourself, I wonder if as an administrator you may know better on how to proceed from this point on. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 04:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If I hadn't voted, I'd move it myself. But someone will be along to take care of it soon. The RfM will expire in a few hours. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Done by User:Maunus. --Taivo (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Heartbeat International RM[edit]

I started a requested move discussion at Talk:Heartbeat International (Christian organization) -- would you care to chime in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IPA query[edit]

Hi Kwam. Wondering if you can explain this edit? Don't misunderstand, I'm not wanting an argument, just curious why the altered pronunciation is marked as 'cleanup'. The new pronunciation is wrong in Scottish English. This makes it sound like the number 5, and if you said it like that in Scotland that's what people would hear unless you had an accent. I'm guessing there is some kind of accent or allophone standardization going on, but if you would explain it to me as someone not familiar with this practice on wikipedia that would be helpful (similar issue with this). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure: it wasn't marked as Scottish. Unless stated otherwise, we assume transcriptions are generic ones for everyone who reads WP, not just for a targeted audience. Also, the IPA key that that template links to does not define what [əi] means: it's a bit like defining an English word by linking to a French dictionary that doesn't have it listed.
There's a newish template IPA-endia for regional variants of English that aren't covered by the generic-English IPA key. It's not finish yet, and for now it just links to the complete IPA key. Since "Fife" is such an easy name (apart maybe for some of our non-native-English readers), there really isn't any need for my changes; we can just change the template. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


One of "those" again, sorry. SOme new editor unilaterally moved Álava - the consensus form we established last year - to Álava-Araba. Since it has to be moved over a redirect, I don't think the chap can do it himself and I was wondering if you could spare a moment? Cheers Akerbeltz (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh sugar, he also moved San Sebastián... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, a whole lot of them... Special:Contributions/Jaume87 I left a note on his talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
More problematic are the cut&paste moves, which can be a pain to clean up if let go for too long. I've reverted some (it's late & I'm not terribly alert), & left a note for other admins to review.
Pls let me know of specific cases I may have missed. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you got them all - many thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologise about my moves. Kwami, there is not a debate about San Vicente del Raspeig should be San Vicente del Raspeig or San Vicente del Raspeig/Sant Vicent del Raspaig, or is there? IMO I haven't done that many mistakes on my corrections: Fageca is not Facheca, Bossòst is not Bosost, etc. I clearly missed few consensuses, like Villarreal, Xaló Álava and San Sebastián, so i apologise again, i never meant to cause any trouble, plus unnecessary work. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. This isn't my topic, so if I undid some moves I shouldn't have, please let me know and I'll restore them (if you can't, or you do it, or whatever).
Properly done moves can always be reverted. The only real problem are the cut&paste moves, because then the article history is split, and starts growing in two locations, and it's a pain to splice them back together if they're left for too long. I'm thinking you got that already? So if you're prevented from actually moving the page, just ask someone like me to do it for you rather than copying it over. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you bring it up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries. They might already have had that debate and either way, it will save you having to debate it on every talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Or even Portal:Catalan-speaking Countries Akerbeltz (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I will read them properly.
I just have a doubt, how long does someone need to wait to bring up new requested moves to discussions? For example, on Jalón and Villarreal there have already been made some requested moves, which seem didn't success. I'd like to know if it is possible to revive them.
One more thing, when I moved Jalón to Xaló, I created Xal without any intention, you can delete it if you want. Sorry again for the mess i did :) Jɑυмe (xarrades) 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The mess isn't a problem as long as you're willing to work with others, which you obviously are.
There's no set policy on when to revisit a page move. If some aspect was not properly addressed, it may be revisited immediately. Say, if people objected because some other page was not moved, and the names should all follow the same convention, you might make a 2nd proposal to move all those pages; or if the guideline or similar articles that would have affected the outcome have been changed, it might be appropriate to revisit the move. What gets people upset is an attitude of screw you, I'm going to keep making a scene until I get my way. It's the in-between situations that are hard to judge, and I don't have any answer for you there. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks kwami, you are very helpful. I will read how stuff works and then I'll see if I can do anything. Could do something like:
-Jalon (disambiguation page) → Jalón~Xaló village, Xaló (river)~Jalón (river) (also called Gorgos) in Alicante and Jalón (river) in Aragon-Castile and León. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Ugh! San Vicente del Raspeig was a mess, not because it was moved, but because the page history was split (the content was copied back & forth several times). I think it's fixed now. I don't know which name is correct, so I put it at the most recent stable version and started a move discussion on the talk page. (The article itself is protected from editing right now, since some anon IP started cutting & pasting again, but that's only for an hour.) — kwami (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I paid attention to that, I won't move pages without letting you know :D
I replied you here and started some other move discussions (La NucíaLa Nucia and PeñíscolaPeníscola/Peñíscola)
What about Elche? Could I suggest moving it to official form Elx/Elche? Current name do not match with Misteri d'Elx. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, UNESCO uses the Spanish form Elche. (The Mystery Play of Elche).
You don't need to come to me for page moves! It's not a matter of getting permission (who am I to grant permission?), just a matter of politeness to ask first (on the article talk page, not here) in case it's already been discussed. You only need to come here if you can't move the page yourself.
I have no advice on Elche. Personally, I dislike double names. IMO, it's better to pick one, either because it has wider international recognition, or because it's truer to the local form. I think double names should be a last resort, or a temporary solution until a decision can be made. But that's just me ;) — kwami (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Spanish.2FCatalan_double_names. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinyarwanda and Kirundi[edit]

Hi Kwami,

Just a heads up that I have reverted your two page moves of Kinyarwanda and Kirundi. I don't regard these moves as uncontroversial, so if you really want them to go ahead, they should be listed at WP:RM. I have listed my reasons for opposing this at Talk:Kinyarwanda#Name change if you wish to contribute to the debate.

On a personal level, I lived in the area for many years, and in all the time there I never heard anyone use the terms "Rwanda language" or "Rundi language", plus the CIA and BBC do not use those terms, so I think this fails WP:COMMON right out, no matter what ethnologue thinks. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rundi" is even used in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi, just go ahead and move it back, since I barely expected my movement can sustain.

I just don't know why, when most of the world don't call this language/dialect "Hakka Chinese" (well how many linguists on earth call it this way in their studies?), and when the name "Hakka" is far more accepted in the world and appears everywhere in the article itself already, you guys still insist to suffix it with "Chinese". It's hard not to link that mandatory but strange, affected "family name" behind the name of the language/dialect to some kind of "Sino-centric" or "One Big Chinese Language" view. If you can tell me how reasonable that "Hakka Chinese" is more NPOV than using "Hakka" only, then I'll be more persuaded and less non-conformative. Even if Hakka is regarded as merely a dialect of "the Chinese language", wouldn't it be ridiculous to call every dialect "XXX Chinese"? Or if you guys live in a country where such things are common and reasonable, then be my guest, since unfortunately the rest of the world does not seem to care for this oddity either.

Finally, many disambiguous pages on Wikipedia add "(language)" to refer to the languages mentioned, and I don't see the reason why this practice is unapplicable to Chinese languages/dialects. Even "(linguistic)" should be far more acceptable. But when people use a rare term of "Hakka Chinese", then it's showing the implied classfication and orientation already, and this is NOT NPOV. --Roberto Carlos No.3 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, if you can come up with a better suggestion, I'd be delighted. I agree that, out of context, people would expect "Hakka Chinese" to mean the people rather than the language. But what else is there?
"Hakka dialect" is not acceptable because it's a language.
"Hakka language" and "Hakka (language)" are not acceptable because it's a dialect.
"Hakka (linguistics)" is not acceptable because it's not a linguistic topic.
Just plain "Hakka" is of course used as much for Hakka people as for the language, and is rightfully a redirect.
Again, come up with a good solution and people will jump all over it. But we've gone around and around with this, and no-one's been able to think of anything.
You said, many disambiguous pages on Wikipedia add "(language)" to refer to the languages mentioned. Really? Any examples? I don't know of such a page. The only thing I'm aware of is cant (language), which is something quite different: a kind of language called a "cant".
As for people who call it "Hakka Chinese", true, it's uncommon. Writers generally just call it "Hakka" and use context or circumlocution to dab. In a title, of course, the first does not exist and the second is awkward (though perhaps you can think of something). But there is McBride-Chang (2003) Reading development in Chinese children, Brown & Ogilvie (2008) Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world, Greenberg (1978) Universals of human language, Finegan (2007) Language: its structure and use, Char & Char / Hawaii Chinese History Center (1983) Chinese historic sites and pioneer families of the island of Hawaii, Republic of China (2003) National Science Council Review.
I'd prefer something a little clearer. Perhaps you're smarter than me and can think of it.
Anyway, if you think you can make a good argument for Hakka (language)—or anything else, for that matter—make a move request or otherwise bring it up for discussion. We work off of consensus here. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


  • User:Jaume87 has made a fair number of cut&paste moves. I think I caught them all (at least back to Xmas), but it's late, I'm tired, and it would be a good idea for s.o. to review the account. — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please when will you be able to list all these needed history-merges? See also Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know which ones do. I caught one after I posted that note, but repaired it myself. I'll need to take another look. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
In most cases, it was only Jaume's edits which were lost, or sometimes a bot or automated cleanup (iw bots, commons delinker, etc.) which will be repeated anyway. I've notified Jaume that some of his work may have been lost, and to see if there's anything he wants to redo. I don't see anything else that IMO is worth the effort of a history merge.
Ah, caught one more, La Vall d'Alcalà. Merged. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You found Fageca? ~ Thanks i didn't touch any in Valencia province lol. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, GallineraLa Vall de Gallinera. I think those should be all, or most, i am looking. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Those aren't problems, Jaume, because you moved them properly. When you use the 'move' tab, the page history is carried along with the article. People might argue over the name, but there's no maintenance work that needs to be done. La Vall d'Alcalà was different: there you deleted the article in one place, and pasted it in another. When you do that, the page history is left stranded at the old name, and the new article starts building up a separate history. Then if it's ever moved back, it gets to be a real mess. — kwami (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ChuShogiPromotions.png[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ChuShogiPromotions.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is about you're citation needed tag in the Warne, NC page.[edit]

Yeah, just curious... but what's the problem with it? I by no means meant to make any mistake... if I had, please point me in the correct direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It just seemed unlikely. Might it be pronounced like war with an n at the end? — kwami (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure where I could "prove" the pronunciation.... but I'm from the town in question... everyone says worn. (rhyme). In fact, if you were to look at the town motto on the website for the community center, it says "Where your welcome is never 'Warne' out" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Please before touching the article again go to the talk page - edit summaries are one thing - an intelligent response would be not to dismiss and revert - but to explain yourself at the talk page - even if it might seem obvious to you SatuSuro 23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was factually wrong. Discussion is for opinion, or for substantiating facts, but this was s.t. no-one would disagree with. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Facts? hahaha - show me a large area where there is total consistency amongst all academics about a whole range of linguistic arguments in southeast asia ... hmmm, I think fact is acceptable with your specific edit - but a lot more of the southeast asia area is potentially contentious and needs care in placing any claims - rather than 'facts'
however your later edit at Indonesia is accepted - SatuSuro 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that anyone would defend the idea that a "sultanate" is a "dialect". Yeah, I think that's rather unambiguously a fact. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, a Sultanate is not a dialect. But let’s not obfuscate any further: as I previously pointed out in my edit summary, that was a typo. Indeed, that it was a grammatical/syntax error was fairly clear, in my opinion.
Typo or not, I don’t think it justifies the hard revert of a number of other changes. However, I agree with SatuSuro that this most recent edit of yours is good. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if the revert was upsetting. I simply didn't see much difference between a fix and a revert. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A possible point to consider is that many of the Indonesian/Malay distinctions in articles across the range of south east asia have been regularly contested and created many edit wars in the past - when I saw the info box placing of malay as the language of Indonesia - the immediate thought is that many seeing that diff would consider that an invitation for serious edit wars and arguments - regardless of the intent of the change for linguistic truth or clarity - the concession in this case for encyclopediac clarity (as opposed to truth or fact) is to allow indonesian language for the indonesians and if you wished to make an issue of the origins - then it is either a separate part of the article or other article to prove or establish the fact or truth - I was not in any way focused on the other part of sultanate/dialect SatuSuro 09:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the way the wording is now. The article is not intended for Indonesians, but for those who know little of Indonesia, and I wanted to make it clear to them how close the languages are. I was always amused when Indonesians objected to me calling the language I was speaking with them "Malay", despite the fact that I'd learned it in Malaysia, out of "Malay" grammars, and had a "Malay" dictionary. I know some Usonians who call their language "American" rather than English, and find that similarly amusing. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm I would never tell my indonesian friends i was speaking malay - thats simply impolite and innapropriate - unless you are speaking javanese - that is another matter - in Yogyakarta in the deep dark past I was told I was speaking malay (I had started at a university where they specifically were teaching malay rather than Indonesian) by a javanese - as he could detect the bhs malay inflections and word usage vs the local javanese affected indonesian which he was using - I think you have to be very careful with claims of knowledge about language with speakers of Indonesian or Malay - or you can end up in some rather awkward situations - unless if you can joke with them about the situation in their mother tongue (ie javanese etc) SatuSuro 10:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, people didn't appreciate it, so I didn't do it much. But I was actually speaking "Malaysian", or perhaps it would be better to say my language skills were basic enough that it didn't matter which I was speaking. It just struck me as odd that I was speaking a different language when I crossed the border, even though I spoke the same. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

I see from this talk page you seem to have trouble with moving pages. Please do not move gyros again; there is not support for the name you moved it to. Jonathunder (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of support. No reason has been given for not following the MOS apart from I don't like it. Posted a RfM. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung up for Admin[edit]

Dunno whether you want to get yourself embroiled w/ him again, but your Worcester nemesis is up for admin status. I thought he was an obtuse jerk in that exchange, but I don't have the inclination to devote myself to a big WP argument against his elevation. --Atemperman (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You can just say what you said here; you don't need to stick around for an argument. If you don't say something, you can't complain if he's made an admin! :) — kwami (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I only saw this section as I watchlisted your page for the above. As for your oppose comments, they sum up my thoughts fairly well, but that's based on (as far as I know) a single episode. Your concerns seem to be rather long standing. So, I'm reluctant to provide a similar comment, however, if the kudpung uses the tools in the same boorish manner he "dealt" with me, then that would be no good at all. --Merbabu (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
WP is in general not a democracy, but elections for adminship are. If you don't participate, you'll get a govt that reflects that. If it's just me railing against him, it could be that I'm being unreasonable, or have some grudge. He is, after all, a very good editor apart from his personality, and dealing with him was so unpleasant that I really don't want to revisit it by digging up edit histories. When several people say the same thing, however, it strikes readers as more likely to have some substance. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You have email SatuSuro 09:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian Sign Language[edit]

No such information available. I was trying to find out some info about it, but I couldn't. As far as I know, the Macedonian law describes it as separate language for communication in Macedonia equal to the spoken Macedonian. On the web site of the Association of deaf people in Macedonia, there some general information about the language, about the basic phrases and about the alphabet. I hear about the Yugoslav language for the first time. Regards, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! In the SLs of E. Europe, they say that they had no info on Macedonia. I wouldn't expect a truly separate language, & somehow I doubt they use Bulgarian SL (which might be a variety of Russian SL?). — kwami (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, let me ask the Association and I will inform you about their response. If they say it is part of the Yugoslav languages then we should state like that. As soon as they respond me, I'll inform you.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have sent them an email and I wait for the response. I asked them whether the MSL is separate language (if it is which language family is member to) and if it is not, whether it is a dialect of the Yugoslav languages such as Slovene. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The book is very good and it is valuable. I went through the book and as you said it is about the history of the language, the basic principles of the language, the alphabet and the teaching and training interpreters. In many instances, the author recalls the situation in Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia and the situation in ex-Yugoslavia association. So far, I did not find even one word about the classification of the language and about the MSL. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting fact of omission. Let's see what the association has to say. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


I closed the requested move discussion on the Māori topics and made the requested moves. It's time to start the cleanup that you said you were itching to undertake! --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I had the time then. Let's see what I can fit in now. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I got to about a thousand, and then s.o. else finished up the job. (There are about 80 that are now 'Maori people' that come up as obvious choices for 'Maori culture' or 'Maori mythology', so I'm going through them.) — kwami (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

San Vicente del Raspeig[edit]


In spite of the consensus reached at Talk:San Vicente del Raspeig, the page was moved back by a Spanish Wikipedia user: Imperator-Kaiser (talk · contribs). He was aware of the proposal and of the conclusion, as well as the other moves such as Talk:La Nucia, where he voted against it, saying in Spanish, b/c he refused to write in English, that the proposal was "another absurd measure of radical nationalists [sic] (i.e. regionalists)".

I do not wish to start a "move" edit war, so I did not move it back. I don't know if you are familiar with Spanish-related articles (especially those related to those autonomous communities in Spain that speak another native language besides Spanish), but I wouldn't be surprised if an edit war ensues, with Spanish Wikipedia users reverting back to the "Spanish-only" version.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved & messed up the redirect history so that he can't revert. Hopefully that will be enough. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gyros merger[edit]

Kwami, we need to get more neutral editors involved in this discussion. Posting to the food and drink project doesn't seem to have helped. How can we do that (without, of course, violatingWP:Canvassing)? --Macrakis (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll post on one of the editing boards. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced additions[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Mudra. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Violated 3RR[edit]

Hi kwami, You've removed Slrubenstein's changes to the Ritual Decalogue article 4 times in under 24 hours. As you know, this is an obvious WP:3RR violation. I recommend you revert yourself, and work things out on the Talk: page, before you are blocked for violating 3RR, which none of us would want. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And you are also edit warring. You should know better by now. In this last edit, I removed the offending phrase. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you did, but you also removed Slrubenstein's additions, quotations, etc., so it's a revert regardless. And it's pretty ironic when someone who has just violated WP:3RR admonishes someone who has not for "edit warring". Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I did lose count. But you are violating WP:BOLD: when an edit to a stable article is reverted, you should take it to the talk page, and not resort to edit warring. You should know better by now: you're not a newbie. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't be counting at all. The only important and indispensible part of BRD is the D.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't make the edit though, someone else did. And I was commenting on the Talk: page too, unlike you; in fact, you reverted three times before deigning to show up there. Also, given your own lengthy Wikipedia experience and recent behavior, continued admonitions that I should "know better by now" are (as stated before) at best, ironic. Now, please think this through: in our recent interactions, what has worked best for you; edit-warring and belligerence, or calm non-personal Talk: page discussion? I think you'll have to admit that the latter has gotten you much farther than the former. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Whereas edit-warring has gotten you further, which is evidently part of the problem. You revert without consensus, but expect others to convince you before they revert. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


What are my religious views? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gyros merger[edit]

See Talk:Shawarma#Proposed merge -- it looks pretty hopeless. See also User:Mgreenbe/Shawarma merge This issue exposes some structural issues around Wikipedia.... --Macrakis (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not been posted, so no-one's monitoring it. The discussion they'll be watching is at gyro. Also, this isn't a democracy: if it's obvious that the people voting against don't understand that the names don't correlate to the regional variations, then their voices won't count for much. WP policy is part of the consensus too, representing those who aren't part of this particular discussion. It depends on how well each side convinces whoever closes the discussion. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Those are old merge discussions, no longer 'live' -- but I thought worth comparing with the current dynamic. --Macrakis (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Moves of Jilu Mandarin, etc[edit]

Please go to that page's talk to give your input, before enough users who are not knowledgeable enough chime in. Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Ive noticed your edits on Central Plains Mandarin and Lan–Yin Mandarin, would you mind adding your input to the conversation taking place at Talk:Xiao'erjing#Footnotes, it appears that User:Babelfisch is skeptical of either the existence of xiaoerjing and massive parts of the article, which i sourced earlier, i checked the article and the facts in it appear to be sound and sourced, variations of spelling do exist, as you noted it is used to write two different dialects of mandarin, Babelfisch complained allegedly that the article says only one variant of xiaoerjing is in use, and i don't see why that is a problem, i'm getting more of the feeling of hostility toward the article, looking for any excuse to destroy it, rather than a genuine concern for facts.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR again[edit]

Kwami, you've reverted Ritual Decalogue 3 times again. The next time you revert this article, regardless of when or what you revert, I am taking you to WP:AN/3RR. Jayjg (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, because your opinions are more reliable than encyclopedic sources. I forget that we need to edit for Truth rather than verifiablity, and that any inconvenient sources should be deleted. How silly of me to question your wisdom. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of hyphens[edit]

You just moved "World number one male tennis player rankings" to World number-one male tennis player rankings. I'm not sure what is proper English or proper wiki protocol in this and the MOS is a little vague. You may be correct but it could also be that proper English in using a compound modifier would give us "World-number-one male tennis player rankings" (i.e. two hyphens). It's been without the hyphen for quite awhile but the important thing is to get it right so we don't get moves left and right. I also put this query up on the talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I just knew it was wrong the way it was. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

Hello, Kwamikagami. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with pronunciation format[edit]

Hi, since I see you have worked on the Manual of Style/ Pronunciation, can you please help me with an issue at Avatar. I had to remove an unconventional pronunciation line, placed over the the first paragraph of the article [7], but the person is correct in that this is the way it is pronounced in Hindi, ie uh-vuh-tahr, although English speakers pronounce it otherwise. Can you please explain to me how it is proper to insert this (I think) after the first mention (in bold) of the word Avatar? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC) PS, I tried to somehow include it like this [8], but there must be a more proper way. Hoverfish Talk 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

AWB + unicode template[edit]

Your edit to Lenition is kinda horked; I'm not sure what the intent was, but you may want to bug whomever implemented that functionality in AWB. (I reverted it, but please go ahead and fix whatever the issue is; I don't really understand wtf that example is actually trying to show, or else I'd dork with it myself.) --moof (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to apply a consistent format to the entire word. Minor edit. Sorry for the mess. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Hyphenations[edit]


Your inappropriate hyphenation/redirects of a number of the articles I spent a great deal of time working on is proving very difficult for me - someone who is quite obviously less skilled than yourself at Wikimachinations - to undo.

In the spirit of the consensus reached after the previous discussion on this issue, I would respectfully request, and GREATLY appreciate it, if you could please try to find the time - at your earliest convenience - to fix those articles/redirects that you altered and that remain, to date, inappropriately hyphenated and redirected.

I thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, if you tell me which articles you are referring to. — kwami (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you were working under a different name. My understanding was that we have consensus for "small-cell" and "large-cell" carcinomas (which of course go together). Or were you talking about s.t. else? — kwami (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the name mixup - real name Cliff, User name is uploadvirus. And IMHO, not to beat a dead horse, but the only hyphen should be non-small cell carcinoma. Isn't there any easy way for you to find a list of your edits on carcinomas and just reverse them and remove the redirects? Thanks again, sir. Finally - wow, I stand in AWE of your overall contributions! I didn't really notice your UNBELIEVEABLE efforts until after you made me mad and I started checking around and yelling and screaming about you :-) Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talkcontribs) 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cliff,
I added hyphens to a lot of carcinoma articles, which triggered a discussion. The consensus was that, while hyphens may be technically correct, it is more common in the lit to not punctuate, and that we should follow that practice, but that should make exceptions for "small-cell" and "large-cell". This is because the unpunctuated forms are so misleading to the naive reader, who is our primary audience. That is, a "small cell carcinoma", if taken literally, is a small carcinoma of the cells, and a "large cell carcinoma" is a large carcinoma. Most of the other editors in the discussion agreed that this was an undesirable effect, whereas they felt it didn't really matter if people misread other names. So, while I grudgingly concede that I shouldn't move nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome, we do have consensus on hyphenating 'small' and 'large'. (These are often hyphenated in the lit as well, of course.)
Let me know if there are other articles I should move back.
BTW, if you can't move an article, you can make a WP:request for move. If you cut and paste the article, you create a parallel article history, which will just need to be cleaned up. — kwami (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Understood, and will do on the WP:request for move. Thanks for the tip. I may come back to you after completion and post you a list of what I've done so you can make sure I didn't fumble the ball (if you don't mind).
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


If you're going to keep moving language pages at least edit the article to match. See Mapuche language for example. -- Al™ 06:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, it was me who edited the Mapuche language article to match. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The title of the page is Mapuche language. Throughout the article it's referred to by the old tile, Mapudungun (including in the info box). -- Al™ 11:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but once the term is introduced, there's no reason it can't be used. That's a fairly minor matter of style. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Shan (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi, thanks for your moving Shan (disambiguation) to Shan. Please also move Talk:Shan (disambiguation) to Talk:Shan. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your move! --Pengyanan (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear Kwami - I am not happy about your ambush move from Boro to Shinasha. You did not indicate anything on the talkpage that you find such a move necessary - and it would be good to ask around a little before such a major operation. In fact, Boro is the name of the people given in the Ethnologue. This is also the selfname, as opposed to Shinasha, which, although with no pejorative undertones, is the name given by outsiders. The selfname of the language, BTW, is Borna, which may have been a better motivated move target. Landroving Linguist (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The people were already at Shinasha. Any reason that article should not be moved to Boro? — kwami (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I would support that! Best wishes, Landroving Linguist (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


I am not sure I understood what you had meant by the term cladistic sense. A group of dialects/languages (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) based upon "synapomorphies" - shared derived characteristics? Anyway, could you point me to previous discussions on this subject? Also, I would like to know if I can be of any help with enabling you to edit the discussion page. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lost track of which conversation this was. Much of the discussion has been at Serbo-Croatian language, though there's an incredible amount of ranting to wade through before getting anything useful.
Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are defined according to the ethnicity of their speakers. They do not correspond to dialects. All four standardized languages are based on the same Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect of the Shtokavian dialect of SC. Ethnic Croats speak the widest variety of dialects, including some Torlakian. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving articles ---- to ---- tribe[edit]

Please do not indiscriminately move articles about Native American chiefdoms and other groups to a title ending in "tribe." Many of the articles you moved are not about "tribes", but are about chiefdoms, towns, and other entities. I will be moving back the articles about entities that I am familiar with. -- Donald Albury 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I just reversed Gitga'ata, or rather amended your change to Gitga'ata people, which though redundant (as "git" = "people") is a preferable form; "tribe" has various associations and contexts not always suitable, and is very much a "white man's term" especially when imposed wrongly; in Canada it's rarely used - especially by the peoples themselves. There are a couple of current discussions, inert of late, about this on {{NorthAmNative}}; for a while now I've advocated that a NativeMOS or IndigenousMOS be come up with to address stuff like this, but haven't had time to sandbox a draft.Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I got some wrong. They were all characterized as 'tribes' of a larger ethnicity in the main article; Gitga'ata as a tribe of the Tsimshian, for example.
If they aren't tribes they shouldn't be called such, of course, and I've moved quite a few away from such names. If they really are tribes, then it gets more complicated, but I suppose as long as we note in the lede what they are, it shouldn't matter too much. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
All the more reason we need nativeMOS to govern stuff like that....see the RM at Talk:Dan George, which should always have been Chief Dan George, which is a related matter; what I mean by that is because of the mistitling, some earnest editor had come along and taken out most of the "Chief Dan George' phrasing from the article, when the reverse should be the case.Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Ethnicities for 'tribe' and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) for 'Chief'. NativeMOS should be integrated with these. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Not all sub-groups of ethnicities are tribes. Tribe has a specific meaning in anthropology, as well as having negative associations for many readers. Some of the articles that you moved to include "tribe" in the name explicitly state in the lede that the articles are about chiefdoms, which are not tribes. Also, I think that is was unnecessary to add "people" to names of other articles, such as Calusa, as readers are less likely to search for "Calusa people" than for "Calusa". Adding "people" to an article name is appropriate when disambiguation is needed, which was NOT the case with "Calusa". I would recommend that in the future you propose moves and wait a reasonable time for reactions before implementing them. -- Donald Albury 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There are too many articles to operate that way effectively. If you want me to revert a move I make, tell me, and I'll revert it.
I understand what a 'tribe' is. However, I don't generally know whether a particular group is a tribe or not. If I've made a mistake, sorry, but you might want to correct the article that claims it's a tribe.
We generally add 'people' to disambiguate from 'language' when the two share a name. I suppose the Calusa language is too poorly known for it to be much of an issue in this case. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering that a number of editors are objecting to the moves that you made, and reverting them, you do need to stop moving articles without prior discussion. If you didn't know whether or not a particular group is a tribe, then why did you add 'tribe' to the article name? You moved Calusa, Mayaimi, and Teguesta to names with people when there are no language articles for those groups. The Calusa, Mayaimi and Tequesta probably spoke the same language, but only ten words plus place names from that language are known to us, so there is nothing to write an article about, even if we knew what to call that language. -- Donald Albury 14:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I call them a 'tribe' when we describe them as a 'tribe'. If that is inaccurate, the articles need to be corrected. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this has been a bit of a problem. At least in the case nearly all the articles on Florida Indians, no disambiguation purpose is served by the move, and in many cases it introduces problematic terminology. It would probably be best if you reverted all these moves, if you would.--Cúchullain t/c 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll start. Let me know of any ones in particular. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, PLEASE STOP. That article text says "tribe" is not a justification to change the title, and there is an ongoing discussion in IPNA about proper titlign/formatting and also about the use of "tribe" and what it means. And doesn't mean. Spokane people was fine as it was; the inter-relatedness of peoples in this region makes the concept of "tribe' problematic, except as imposed by outside perspectives; Chief Nicola for example had a Spokan name and was both Okanagan and Shuswap and Coeur d'Alene. Having different languages does not make different "tribes". This article for a while had been titled native-style as Spokan, btw. What yo'ure doing is "scattering" different usages across the same series of articles (ethnographic indigenous ones) where what's needed is consistency, not scattershot irregularity engendered by poorly-termed articles. Plaese change it back, I'm tired of having to look through the move log to find items that shouldn't have been changed for no good reason. WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The "people" paradigm has emerged for a vareity of reasons, one of which is because of the vagaries of the way "tribe" gets used in sources, and by article authors, not familiar with the concept or, really, with the nature of the people(s) they're takling about; someone described the Tlingit Eagle Clan as a "tribe" also recently, because that's what a sign, the source, said. Bad sources underlying bad writing; no, a wiki-convention has to be established; you going off half-cocked changing thigns willy-nilly without regard to existing debates and emerging conventions is not helpful ONE LITTLE BIT.Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Minangkabau moved[edit]

I don't agree. But I would have appreciated a talk page discussion and would have accepted consensus and/or good reasoning to move. --Merbabu (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

list of languages[edit]

What do you mean by same criteriom like other languages? It's not same criterium. Look, Croatian language has writen documents writen in Croatian language as it is stated in those documents and books. Writers like Marulić wrote in "Croatian" (arvacki) in 15 Century. SC is family of languages, not a language. Second problem is that SC family language is used by various states, diferent then Hindu (in India only). And official languages in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are separate, independent languages. Croatian language has it's history for thousend year while SC (family of languages) has been invented 200 years ago, and used no more. Institutions around the world accepted this to be independent languages. I wont try to explain you diferency between Serbian and Croatian, I think you are familiar with it. Croatian language lived great transformation during 19 Century because of political reasons and so on... But it has longer history then any language from SC family. Ivan Štambuk thinks I'm expanding a propaganda, that's insulting isn't it? You see, we have ton of sources saying those are independent languages, and most important of all, it is very clearly without any book.

Regards.--Wustenfuchs 10:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you've got your facts wrong. SC is widely recognized as a single language, whichever name it goes by (SC, BCS, B/C/S, etc), and we treat it as a single language on WP. It's certainly not a language "family". Also, Hindi-Urdu, Malay, Spanish, and English are also spoken with competing standards in different countries (India and Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, etc), but are listed as single languages in the list, so treating SC as a unit is in keeping those languages together.
There is no right or wrong here, but an interpretation of what we want for the article. I suspect that most people coming to the list are curious as to how many people they could speak to if they were to know a particular language. There's also more politics than linguistics going on in the case of Croatian. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we add those 100 people who speak this invented SC, and at the same time we add those 6 milions who speak Croatian and about 11 milion who speaks Serbian?--Wustenfuchs 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your figures are wrong. SC is S plus B plus C. Therefore 16+ million people speak SC. SC was not "invented", it's just a name. Take it to the SC talk page if you disagree. Or just read the discussion we've already had on that page. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about you at WP:AN3[edit]

Kwamikagami, please see WP:AN3#User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Kwami. Thanks for intervening at the eye–hand span article. At about the same time, I wrote a typically hyped-up entry at the Mexican–American War talk page concerning Bartlett's action. I am gobsmacked that people are contemplating that he did not breach WP:INVOLVED. Is there something I'm not getting? Please read his post again. If nothing is done, I believe the Involved policy should be simply dumped, since no one believes it should operate. Which bit of it is irrelevant to Bartlett's actions? Tony (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide explicit diffs, Toni. I don't follow how there was a COI. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

En dashes: please hold off from editing MOS as an admin[edit]

Hi Kwami. First let me thank you for working to fix the damage at Mexican•American War. Soon I'll be making a substantial contribution in support of the new RfM.

I have concerns about your recent edits at WP:MOS. I seem to recall that it is judged improper for admins to edit a protected page on their own initiative. Is that right? See this, at WP:FULL (my underlining):

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page.

Even if it were not strictly against policy, the changes you made do require discussion, for our heavily contested guidelines concerning hyphens and dashes. For example, this innovation has not been discussed:

  • A hyphen is not used when the attributive element is capitalized in its non-attributive form: Cold War era, Homer Simpson effect (both Cold War and Homer Simpson are capitalized); compare Matter-Dominated Era, Great Black-backed Gull.

It isn't that I disagree. I have wanted a similar addition for some time. Scope is a problem, because (for example) there are classes of uncapitalised elements that are also not hyphenated despite their attributive application.

As for distinguishing compound attributive adjectives (specifically) and compound attributives (generally), that too is unsignalled and undiscussed. There has been some basic conceptual confusion at WT:MOS (in which A di M has played a part), and I want to raise something about that.

In light of these considerations, will you revert your own changes, for now? Those guidelines are so sensitive that fresh complications may not help. But again: I certainly appreciate your knowledgeable approach and your enlightened attitude to MOS.

My best wishes.–¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is improper for admins to edit a protected page if they are part of the dispute that led to its protection, for that would give them an unfair advantage in the dispute. I don't think that's the case here; correct me if I'm wrong.
I can certainly see that the wording may need to be adjusted, but content-wise there is nothing new here: our existing examples already illustrated the point about capitalization and that "adjective" was being used loosely for "attributive". The latter has led to misinterpretation based on varying definitions of "adjective", so IMO needed to be fixed immediately. The capitalization bit (perhaps an old version?) has also been used to argue that hyphens must be dropped when a phrase is capitalized, and so IMO needed to be clarified as well. I don't see that my wording precludes non-capitalized attributive phrases w/o hyphenation; please link any discussion or examples you think would make this problematic.
I wasn't familiar with FULL. (I don't spend a lot of time in admin work.) Perhaps you could raise the points on the talk page? If there are intelligent disputes with them, I'll be happy to revert them for now, though I can't imagine an intelligent objection to adj→attrib, which is simply a matter of precision. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of rollback[edit]

This is a blatant abuse of rollback. Please remember that rollback is only for vandalism. Non-admins have been stripped of it for less than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've acknowledged that that was inappropriate. It was due to annoyance at an editor playing stupid as a strategy for an argument he wasn't winning on its merits, but I should have used proper procedure. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

English noun phrase[edit]

I wonder why that article was written separately from "Noun phrase" in the first place. It seems to be in a mess. What do you think should be done about it? Tony (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd tag it for merging the way 'nominal group' has been. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Peking opera move[edit]

I noticed that you moved the article Beijing opera to Peking opera back in February. It would have been nice if you had opened a discussion on the talk page on this issue before moving it. There was already such a discussion back in 2007, which ended without consensus. Notifying me, as one of the primary authors of the article, might also have been good. The issue of "Beijing" vs. "Peking" is not as clear cut as you made it sound in the move rationale. Since I found nearly all of the sources for the article, I can tell you that a lot of them use "Beijing opera", especially newer ones. Even if you disagree with that, though, you still have to discuss before moving. I won't revert your move, but please be more considerate in the future.--Danaman5 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It did seem pretty clear-cut in the sources I could find. For example, Google Ngrams shows Beijing opera tying with Peking opera for a few years in the 1980s, but then dropping back.[9] Similarly for dictionaries. — kwami (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most difficult language to learn[edit]

Kwami, this discussion has been going on for 7 days and probably needs closing as the consensus is pretty strong for "Keep". --Taivo (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Taivo (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your en dash edits[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering about your en dash edits. I often replace hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes where appropriate, but I don't think your edits are correct. You mention WP:ENDASH in your edit summary, but nothing in that section seems to support your edits. The section a little above it in the MOS, WP:HYPHEN, seems to indicate that the original hyphens were, in fact, correct. Am I missing something? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 09:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The analogous "pre–World War II technologies" is given as an example at ENDASH. The en dash indicates that the scope is post–(World War) and not (post-World) War. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. Sorry to have bothered you. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 09:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

IPAc-en conversions[edit]

Please do not revert conversions on talk pages. This just makes it show up on the automated conversion bot again.

Also, if we completely remove the old IPA templates we can start standardizing the template people use. --deflective (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Does it matter that the IPAc template doesn't support the transcription? We don't want to correct it when it's on a talk page.
Also, does the conversion bot not flag nonsensical IPA? That would be a valuable function. — kwami (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't much care what {{pronEng}} calls are changed to, so long as they no longer show up on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PronEng.
I would need some sort of method to detect nonsense IPA (at minimum, i could detect non-standard symbols) and a way to flag them. --deflective (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Or any string that does not appear in the IPA chart. I don't know how to do that in AWB (I can't search for a negative set), but a bot should be able to do it. — kwami (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a category these pages should go into? --— deflective (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not yet! Another approach would be to mirror the template w a slightly different name; the articles could then be found through 'what links here', and the template would be converted back as the errors are corrected. A category could be mentioned on the template doc page, though, esp. if the bot goes through every once in a while and regenerates the list. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


This revert is kind of strange. Have you read the original citation from the NSF? You should, because it does NOT say anything close to what is stated in the sentence. The NSF does not say that astrology is a pseudoscience, nor does it make a case that it is. It's not only a weasel statement, it's flat-out wrong. The reference I added states it clearly, that it is considered a pseudoscience. Since science does not work in absolutes, I'll leave that to the pseudoscience people themselves, "considering" is a perfectly appropriate word. I'm not getting into a revert war, but why should you continue using a sentence that is incorrect and unsupported by the so-called citation? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like tracking conversations across pages, so I'll reply to you here. As I said "considered to be" is perfect wording for scientists, since we don't work in absolutes. If you look at my background, I have no tolerance for the pseudoscience POV pushers, so I'm willing to make the wording as strong as possible. If I were running this place, I'd write "astrology is pure crap meant for those with little education or intelligence." But I'm flexible.  :) I tried something else, if you don't mind rewriting instead of reverting, maybe we can reach something strong but NPOV. Again, the NSF reference is really a bad one. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I notified you on your talk page while you were writing here. I didn't mean to split the conversation.
We have plenty of other references; this footnote was too specific IMO for the lede, and we really don't need any ref for the lede, since the lede is supposed to summarize the body. But "scientists consider" is the kind of wording pseudoscientists push for to support their argument that there is legitimate debate: Well, sure, some scientists consider it to be PS, but that's just one opinion among many, recent evidence shows the opposite, and the matter is yet to be resolved. I'd prefer to nip this in the bud. Take a look at Griswaldo's recent sources on the Talk page. Can you think of a phrasing which doesn't open the "generally considered to be" can of worms? — kwami (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Now I remember why WP makes me so cranky. Science isn't a "vote". But if you've been battling the POV pushers in the article, and know the arguments, please put it back to what you think makes the point best. Please leave my reference, so that we have one person who describes the philosophy of what makes or does not make pseudoscience in astrology. Isn't it amusing that when I see "scientists consider" I think it means "there's no doubt scientifically". LOL.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't removed your ref. Yes, in a rational context, that's how I'd read it too, but this isn't a rational context. It's a matter of framing where POV X considers it to be A while POV Y considers it to be B, so that the word "consider" means there is significant doubt. I'll think about other wording, but any suggestions you have would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider (LOL, couldn't resist) the statement "Astrology is pseudoscience" to be POV (A or Y). It is NPOV, of course. We're going about this the wrong way. It's impossible to prove the negative that Astrology is BS. Those who say that Astrology is real need to provide evidence supported by reliable sources. Frustrating. I need to look back on my contributions. We've written this kind of stuff for a whole bunch of pseudoscientific articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Astrology is pseudoscience" is the right approach. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's good. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. There was even a peer-reviewed "clinical" study that confirmed that there is no personality difference based on birth date. So, what's the over/under time until we're reverted? LOLOrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't a scientific study, because the authors didn't understand astrology. Astrology is not amenable to scientific study, and more recent studies have since proven astrology to be correct. (At least, that how I predict the argument to go, given the alignment of Mars when you posted that edit.) — kwami (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think some critics were right that there was too much about PS in the 1st paragraph. I left a brief assertion and moved the rest down to your paragraph. It could perhaps use better integration, if you can think of anything. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami, thanks for adding/moving the "Naming" section; I just changed the title to Etymology for the sake of consistency, but the placement is perfect. I could have done it myself, but wanted some consensus for even simple changes. I'd been watching the recent activity and wanted to pitch in with something useful and help get past the pointless arguments about pseudoscience. Alas, I failed to take into account that Mercury is in retrograde and thus our efforts are doomed to failure.... Doc Tropics 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

McLaren > McLaren?![edit]

Now obviously you are doing something worthwhile to all those F1 pages. Just out of curiosity, what is it? No hurry. Just interested. 4u1e (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just formatting. If you had, say, a Simca-Gordini-Frazer-Nash-built engine, someone not in-the-know would have no idea how many companies were involved. Simca-Gordini–Frazer-Nash is more legible, per WP:ENDASH. (Okay, that's a made-up example, but some of the real ones are almost as opaque, like Ligier-Mugen-Honda (Ligier–Mugen-Honda). Some mags use spaces rather than hyphens or dashes, but that can be a problem w s.t. like Toro Rosso Alpha Romeo. That doesn't work w spaces, and if you hyphenated it, Toro Rosso-Alpha Romeo, it would look like there were three companies, one being Rosso-Alpha.) — kwami (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
See. I knew there was a good reason, although I find it very hard to spot the differences in the example above (failing eyesight, no doubt!). I salute your dedication to clarity. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Could also be your default browser font. Some of them don't have much of a difference. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

May I request that you don't do any more until you gain consensus for the changes at WP:F1? Also, what are your long-term plans? Are you planning to make such replacements for all constructors in all 800+ F1 race articles? And all 60 season summary articles? And all F1 driver/engineer/constructor articles? And what about non-F1 races? DH85868993 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:F1 in which I invite you to participate. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of pre-1920 jazz standards[edit]

Hi! I see you moved the list of pre-1920 jazz standards to list of jazz standards before 1920. May I ask what was wrong with the old name? The list has been through quite a few different names, but I can't see what the problem was with that one. The title was actually suggested in FLC review after it was nominated as List of jazz standards (before 1920). Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move that back. It got caught up with some similar but awkward names. — kwami (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think using pre- is better in this case since "before 1920" sounds like it's missing something. You can say "a 1920 jazz standard" or "a pre-1920 jazz standard", but "a jazz standard before 1920" would sound weird (you'd have to say "a jazz standard written before 1920", for example). Of course, there are more than one technically correct names for that sort of lists. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that "pre-1920" implied a natural class, as if s.t. had happened in 1920 to change the nature of jazz. E.g., there are articles on Florida State Road X (pre-1945), since the numbering system was changed in 1945. — kwami (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I see, but I don't think using pre- would necessarily imply that. That said, the current system may not be the optimal naming in any case -- for example, the corresponding list of post-1950 jazz standards actually includes standards from 1950, not just 1951 and after as the name would imply. I haven't yet figured out a better name for it, though :P Jafeluv (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"List of jazz standards since 1950"? — kwami (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That would have the same problem as "before 1920", I think -- it would have to be "written since 1950" or something like that. I'll need think about it when I get to that list in my expansion project. Chances are it'll have be split into separate lists for the 1950s and post-1959 in any case, so I'm hesitant to start moving it around before the text is "ready". Jafeluv (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

post office article names[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami -- On my watchlist I notice your move United States Post Office (Scotia, New York) to United States Post Office–Scotia, New York, and see in your recent contributions you've renamed some others. I don't mind the moves where you are mainly replacing a hyphen by an en-dash, which is probably correct, although your edit summary could try to give some indication. But for others like the Scotia example I don't necessarily agree. You may note that the U.S. Post Office articles, mostly included in U.S. Post Office (disambiguation) do not all carry uniform type names, because the article names are in fact based on official sources such as National Register listing names which are themselves not uniform. About article names, we don't get to impose a uniform system, if the world out there is more varied and if common names actually vary. Other editors have had strong opinions. So, besides for hyphen to en-dash conversions, would you please pause with P.O. article renames, pending discussion at, I suggest, Talk:U.S. Post Office? Sincerely, --doncram 10:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I will revert them if you like. I wasn't aware there was a reason for the variation; it just seemed random. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd appreciate if you could move back the Scotia one and others like that, but actually i don't know if you can if you are not an administrator because there may have been too many moves already. The Scotia one and a number of other New York & area articles were started and really well-developed to DYK by User:Daniel Case, to whom I would defer on his choice of article title. Actually one big past discussion was about imposing "United States" generally rather than allowing either "U.S." or "United States" according to actual common usage for each place individually, reflected at Talk:U.S. Post Office and an RFC somewhere linked from there. My sense of that is that we should follow common usage individually, although certainly reflect NRHP names with the articles. And that it makes sense to create the articles first rather than have battles within the U.S. Post Office dab page about what the currently-redlinked ones should be named (so i proceeded to start a lot more, but did not complete that). Please don't change the hyphenated redlink names within the U.S. Post Office dab; the current hyphenated names are probably consistent with how the articles are named in corresponding county- and city-based NRHP list-articles. If the article is created at hyphen name first, then later moved, all the pages stay linked properly. Thanks. --doncram 11:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Moved them back. (Let me know if I missed any.) But many of them are hyphenated in the text and info box, so it wouldn't seem to matter. — kwami (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename of pre-1920s sci-fi films[edit]


Is there a reason why you renamed the article to "List of science fiction films before 1920"? The name is now inconsistent with the others in the set.—RJH (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per "naturalness" at WP:TITLE and for consistency with other articles named that way. I can move the others. Category:Lists of comedy films by decade has good titles, and several of the categories were set up that way. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the explanation.—RJH (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


I have reverted your move of secondary ion mass spectrometry. Science is conservative in some terms, and wikipedia mostly follows conventional use. Please consult literature before moving. Common sense and normative grammar don't work in many cases. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you haven't left a summary when reverting my move, so please explain here. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't revert your move. You reverted mine. — kwami (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine, so please explain your original move. Britannica doesn't use dashes for this term, so as most google books. Materialscientist (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I likely misread my watchlist and thought you've reverted my move, which was a bad assumption, my sincere apologies. Back to the point, for some reasons, science often denies using dashes in triple or quadruple names, like "ion attachment mass spectrometry", etc. Materialscientist (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This is simply a stylistic difference, not a substantial one. People tend to drop hyphens from familiar phrases, as high school students for high-school students. However, as a general reference, we can't assume that our readers are familiar with the topic. Sources which hyphenate include Barker et al. (1999) Mass spectrometry, Johnstone (1984) Mass Spectrometry, Volume 7, Kossowsky (1989) Surface Modification Engineering: Fundamental aspects‎, National Research Council (1993) Measuring lead exposure in infants, children, and other sensitive populations‎, Stuart (2002) Polymer analysis, Johnstone & Rose (1996) Mass spectrometry for chemists and biochemists, etc. In other words, there are two formats in common use, and this one follows our MOS and is clearer to the naive reader. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

<indent>I don't doubt some books use dashes in SIMS (as I've checked before, though I've never seen dashed use in my entire career), but the vast majority don't. Its not just about SIMS, it is most quadruple science technique names. Check "ion attachment mass spectrometry" for example. Britannica, common use, and "most people will search without dashes" are strong arguments. Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The last is irrelevant, because they will simply be redirected to wherever we have the article.
Against common usage among those familiar with the field is our need as an encyclopedia to present the concept to those who are not familiar with it. It's really annoying to have to struggle to parse new terms when a bit of punctuation would do it for you. We can always drop the hyphens in body of the article, and in any case readers won't have trouble transitioning to sources which fail to hyphenate once they have the concept. — kwami (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't want to overload redirects, but these articles are of low traffic, thus this is not the issue. I do understand and share your point on hyphens clarifying the meaning. Many science publishers keep this as a policy in double words (like high-school students), but it is usually not so in large compound nouns like SIMS. The issue here is we can't deny common use with logic, or with argument "we think it is good for reader". I think unconventional moves should be discussed with the associated project, WP:PHYS in this case. Would you like me to start? Materialscientist (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If you like.
Your high-school example means that many science publishers "deny common use with logic", since it is more commonly unhyphenated. It's ironic that the longer the attributive phrase, the less likely it is to be hyphenated. I think there may be two reasons for that: in many cases (though not here) it becomes difficult to decide how to hyphenate multiply iterated attributives, and long technical phrases tend to be rote-memorized, so comprehension of their structure may not be a priority. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You know 100 times more in this area (linguistics and grammar), and I can't explain it on the fly, that is why some long terms are not hyphenated. I just know by experience it is not always so, "high-pressure high-temperature [technique, etc.]" is usually hyphenated, though it is not a noun; "light-emitting diode" is also mostly hyphenated. Maybe it is a four-word threshold. Is there some general rejection of hyphens after "y", as in secondary-ion or as in ly- adjectives (where hyphen is rejected)? Materialscientist (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You wouldn't normally hyphenate after -ly adverbs, because the suffix -ly clarifies their role. But you do when it isn't an adverb: a kindly-looking face. If you convert the word to algebraic-style notation, hyphens link whatever you put in parentheses, with (depending on the convention) en dashes playing the role of nested parentheses. The distinction in hyphenation can be important: a government-monitoring program monitors the government, whereas a government monitoring program is just the opposite. But since tech terms are usually carefully coined to be distinctive rather than on the fly, you will seldom get such ambiguity, and if you just memorize them as single units you'll usually be fine. I imagine that "high-pressure" isn't specifically a tech term, so it retains common punctuation. Still, it's nice to be able to parse them. I find them much easier to remember that way. — kwami (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hyphens are certainly used when the phrase would be ambiguous otherwise. The question is should they be used when there is no ambiguity, like in a kindly-looking face, or it is then a matter of preference or style? I have a practical observation (not sure it is correct) that such hyphens are rejected by native (or nearly native) speakers of some countries, like UK and India. Materialscientist (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A "kindly looking face" would be a face looking at you kindly. A "kindly-looking face" would be a face that is inherently kindly looking.
There is a lot of stylistic variation in hyphenation.
In the US, I think hyphenation varies with education level. But the reader can always ignore it if we include it. — kwami (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

<indent>"Kindly-looking face" was not a good example :-) thanks. I've started a thread at WP:PHYS. Scientific techniques are interdisciplinary, and thus I'll invite WP:CHEM and maybe some other projects (maybe electronics? or maybe this is even a wider issue). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry has much stricter hyphenation rules that physics, so I don't know if it would be an issue for them. Equipment and processes, I suppose. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought of WP:CHEM only because it is relevant and is one of the most active science projects on WP. After reading your comments on that thread, I realized that WP:MED might be related too. There are many pros and cons of making this a general discussion. Do you think it should be such? or at least, should WP:MED, WP:BIOL, etc., be invited? Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
That might hinder more than it would help. WP:BIOL can't even decide on which capitalization to use. They only last week, after years of debate, agreed to use sentence case for all mammals, when they had been using title case for primates and whales and sentence case for rodents and ungulates. But now we have sentence case for mammals and title case for birds! Since chemistry is so closely related, it's only right to have them involved, but I'd be reluctant to expand it any further. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine with me, as it it much easier to talk to similarly minded people. I know a bit about the capitalization problem in WP:BIOL, and it is not that easy as it might seem - the published literature is very inconsistent on that; whereas most biology sub-projects did not have a position and finally decided to follow MoS, WP:BIRDS developed their rules and have always been adamant on them. Thus a contradiction. Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean it was easy! — kwami (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Raman AFM - this is something I've never heard of. Beware that many new techniques are invented by non-native speakers who give them odd names and propagate them. (I've managed to convince one group to change one utterly non-grammatical name, but some stubbornly reply "the name is already well established [by them]" or simply deny that the wording is poor). Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mass spectrometry moves[edit]

Hi Kwami. I see you have been moving a lot of mass spectrometry-related articles lately. For the most part I agree with them, but a few I take issue with. For example, the "mass spectrometry XXXXX" pages like "mass spectrometry software". Here I would argue adding a hyphen to make it "mass-spectrometry software" is not necessary because there is no possible ambiguity in the term. Mass spectrometry is a compound noun and highly recognized as such, and therefore does not need a hyphen. For example, would you hyphenate "high school student"? –CWenger (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in an encyclopedia, where clarity is at a premium, I would. I'd argue there's no possibility of confusion as long as you're familiar with the subject, but we can't know our readers will be. As MatierialScientist noted above, "Many science publishers keep this as a policy in double words (like high-school students)". But I won't argue if you revert. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ship classes[edit]

At this point, I'd suggest starting a centralized discussion somewhere about the hyphenation of the ship class article titles. Creating the bot to do this is not difficult, but it will need approval before it can run. And before it can get approval, there needs to be a clear consensus for the task. If you can get a consensus on how the articles should be hyphenated (or whether they should be hyphenated at all), then contact me and I will submit a bot request with a link to that discussion. I have submitted a few bot requests recently where the consensus wasn't clear, and they just turn into quagmires, so I'd prefer not to get into that situation again. —SW— communicate 16:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

War Films Based on books[edit]

As for a title, you might want to make it consistent with other such articles. Our "war film" articles are:

--- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Do you have a preferred wording or format? The ones I did were rather desperate. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for move[edit]

Hi Kwami, long time no see. Hope you're well. Can I ask you to move the page Nalan Mingzhu back to Mingzhu? Some user moved it without discussion and now I can't move it back because of the redirect. Colipon+(Talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2009! But sure. (Should Nalan Xingde remain where it is?) — kwami (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
To be honest these Manchu names have always been quite problematic. Nalan Xingde is a bit of an exception because he has been remembered by his 'full name' in the literary world, where he is famous. On the other hand Mingzhu's name appears in almost all historical records as simply "Mingzhu", i.e., without the clan name "Nalan". So We can leave Nalan Xingde where it is for now. Colipon+(Talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed at WP:AN3[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (talk). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving British submarine pages[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami, I noticed that you have moved several submarine pages recently, adding a hyphen in each case to the title, (reference Trafalgar and Porpoise classes for example). As you know this issue is being discussed at length at the moment at Wiki-ships and on article talk pages, including whether or not to bring a bot into action. However no consensus has yet been reached on whether to include or not to include the hyphen. Given this current state, it might be an idea to hold off on moves until such time that a consensus is reached. Best wishes Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true - consensus was reached here about renaming articles with hyphens in; Kwamikagami is quite within his rights to do so. The current discussion is about a bot-move request, which has become bogged down in discussing the hyphen issue (again). Shem (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shem, was a consensus really reached there? It doesn't seem so. The latest bot-move request has, as you say, opened up into a hyphen merits discussion. So surely that means there is currently not a censensus now? For the record I am not really bothered either way what happens, just that consistency and consensus are important. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The consensus has existed, apparently unchallenged, for eight years. All well-written articles hyphenate in the lede and the rest of the text, even if not in the article name itself. Given that, I'd say we'd need consensus not to hyphenate, though the bot request isn't going anywhere without a renewed consensus to hyphenate. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop moving ship class articles[edit]

Please stop making contentious moves of ship class articles whilst the proposal to move them is under discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will echo this. A new discussion is underway, which may or may not come to a new decision about this issue. Until it is settled, please stop moving articles. Benea (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Stopped. Where is the new discussion? — kwami (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It started here and has several sub-sections. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though you agreed to stop, you have since restarted. So I have placed a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:)--Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to leave out the consensual punctuation when moving articles for other reasons. — kwami (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please return the destroyer articles you moved back until this is resolved?Tirronan (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thak you for brilant mish-mash in some pages! Move of this pages is not good idea... Hornet24 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

List of language families[edit]

Kwami, I see that you're busy with non-linguistic articles, but there's an uncommunicative editor at List of language families who is continually removing Japonic from the list of largest families (claiming categorically that it's part of Altaic) and refusing to talk on the Talk page or even make comments in the edit summaries. I'm running afoul of 3RR so I can't really report him in that forum. I've notified User:Maunus and he's helped, but since you're another linguist-admin, I thought I'd enlist your help as well. He just reverts without discussion and it's a bit frustrating. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Had the history open on a tab I hadn't got to yet, so I'll take a look. — kwami (talk)
Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of the "Pashto language" article[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami, the Pashto language article was protected before, but now it is unprotected, and I noticed unconstructive edits in the article, for example: in this edit reliable references (Morgenstierne's) were removed and the article is likely to be repeatedly edited unconstructively by IPs or blocked members again. Could check it and kindly semi-protect the article indefinitely, please? Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just one revert, and that's the kind of thing that should be addressed on the talk page. I can block that editor if it gets out of hand, but first let's see if there's actually a problem. Meanwhile I think you'll find that most linguists here are willing to abandon Ethnologue as soon as something better comes along. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


The math department wants to move Pi to π. I'm pretty sure such usability issues were discussed when naming non-math articles (like Pi (letter)) in general. Perhaps you can provide some input on Talk:Pi. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I brought it up at WP:TITLE, where it might be of some interest. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Where was the consensus for hyphenating tumor name again? I though the consensus went the other way but may have been mistaken. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember now. This was made an exception because of the potential for confusion.
Ah, here. — kwami (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Move article[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, but could you help move Red Guards (People's Republic of China) back to Red Guards (China)? As far as I can see the name should be as concise as possible - particularly in a dab situation. Red Guards (China) is a totally unambiguous name. Colipon+(Talk)

Sure thing.
Was the move not possible for you? There didn't seem to be anything interfering with it. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi Kwami

Since you have already edited MediaWiki:Common.css/WinFixes.css, perhaps you can help: There are still lots of templates out there that continue using explicit font definitions, just like {{IPA}}, {{polytonic}} and {{Unicode}} used to do before WinFixes.css was created. It would be great if all explicit font definitions were concentrated in WinFixes.css so the explicit font definitions would no longer affect all users, causing disruptive font display even in modern browsers that are perfectly capable of choosing an appropriate font.

Some of the templates that continue using explicit font definitions include: {{script/Hebrew}} (which already assigns an unused class="script-hebrew"), {{lang-he-n}}, {{lang-he}}, {{script/Gaelic}}, {{script/Cuneiform}}, {{script/Runic}}, {{script/Coptic}}, {{script/Phoenician}}, {{script/Slavonic}}, {{okina}}.

If you don't have the time for fixing these templates and WinFixes.css, perhaps you know of another administrator whom I could address about this? I have already [User talk:TheDJ#MediaWiki:Common.css.2FWinFixes.css asked TheDJ]. Thanks anyway! -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ👍 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved them over, apart from cuneiform, which didn't look straightforward. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ👍 08:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Me again: I have just discovered which includes some more templates with IE font fixes:
Additionally, there were several (almost) unused Cyrillic templates. I have proposed them for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
I am not sure whether {{Script/SMP}} might be deleted as well. It is only used in very few articles (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Script/SMP, but I don't know whether {{unicode}} is equivalent. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ👍 11:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

ipa check request[edit]

Hi Kwami. Wondering if you would look at this IPA edit. I have my doubts about this pronunciation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because that o comes from Greek omicron, and is therefore short, it wouldn't normally be stressed. All the pronunciations I've been able to find stress the first syllable. They differ on whether the -ean is stressed or not, which is typical of that suffix. (Stressing it is conservative, but it's often pronounced as if it were -ian.) I've added both pronunciations. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese-speaking.reading help needed[edit]

I'm guessing you might know a bit of Japanese. There's a problem over at Help Desk that needs someone to take a look at a Japanese website to see whether an editor here can request that it refreshes its cached Wikipedia source. If you can help, it would be much appreciated. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very prompt and proactive assistance. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Dear Kwami:

Thanks for your help on the hyphenated lung cancer articles. While I will never agree with you on this issue (partly out of pure stubbornness), I defer to your considerable and admirable expertise on languages in this regard. Didn't mean to come unglued, just kind of sensitive about it.

Best regards" Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'd prefer all of them to be hyphenated, but I can live with just these. — kwami (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed you uploaded File:WritingSystemsoftheWorld2.png, please see this. Thanks. --Kleinzach 05:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


I emailed you. Tony (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding Template:Script/Hebrew within Template:Lang-he-n[edit]

Hi Kwami

After you have moved the font-family definitions from {{lang-he-n}} and {{script/Hebrew}} to MediaWiki:Common.css/WinFixes.css on my request (thanks again), it turned out that these font-family definitions are not only required by MSIE, but also by Firefox on Mac OS X, due to Bug 648248 - Buggy Hebrew fallback font on Mac OS X. Therefore, Ynhockey undid your edits to the two templates.

However, since {{lang-he-n}} does not use the same font-family definitions like {{script/Hebrew}} (the difference is only that {{script/Hebrew}} uses additional font-family definitions and in a slightly different order), the display of Hebrew text on Wikipedia is inconsistent. Compare for instance the following screenshot from Mac OS X (default settings) that shows the inconsistency between {{lang-he-n|בֵּית}} (procuces: "Hebrew: בֵּית‎") and {{script/Hebrew|בֵּית}} ( produces: "בֵּית‎"): Incoherent display of Hebrew text.png

The inconsistency can be fixed by transcluding {{script/Hebrew}} within {{lang-he-n}}. May I ask you to do that? The transclusion has several advantages:

  1. The display of Hebrew text will no longer be inconsistent since {{script/Hebrew}} will be the only template that stylizes Hebrew text.
  2. It creates a useful functional distinction between the two templates: {{script/Hebrew}} will be the only template that stylizes Hebrew text (including the font-family definitions that are required on Mac OS X Firefox and older MSIE), while {{lang-he-n}} will be a template that prefixes "Hebrew:" to a string in Hebrew stylized by {{script/Hebrew}}.
  3. All Hebrew text will have class="script-hebrew" (which is defined by {{script/Hebrew}}). This will ease future changes and user customization.

The following code will be required for {{lang-he-n}}:

[[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]: {{script/Hebrew|{{{1}}}}}{{#if:{{{lit|}}}|, ''[[literal translation|lit.]]'' {{{lit}}}}}<includeonly>[[Category:Articles containing Hebrew language text]]</includeonly>‎<noinclude>{{doc}} {{merge|Template:Lang-he}} </noinclude>

I have taken the liberty of testing this code on {{CYchar}} (an orphan template marked for deletion). It works perfectly well: {{CYchar|בֵּית}} produces "{{CYchar|בֵּית}}", exactly what {{lang-he-n}} is supposed to produce, but in the same style like {{script/Hebrew}}. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ👍 06:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Kwami, I don't know what inspired you to start revising the Uralic language templates, but it's not right. Altaic is "disputed", where the majority of linguists say it's bunk. Uralic is not disputed. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
For example, your edit at Hungarian language removed Uralic from the language template and put "Ugric ?". I looked at Uralic languages to see where you were getting this radical revamping of Uralic and it seems to be based on a single source. That's not sufficient when the majority of Uralic scholarship uses the "traditional" grouping. Do you have other sources? Or just the one? --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Going through the entire Uralic family and removing the traditional groupings based on a single source is too radical a shift and needs to be reversed until some consensus is reached. --Taivo (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
We have more than just that one source. Even Ethnologue has now adopted an agnostic classification. And many of our languages still had Finno-Volgaic, which AFAIK is actually obsolete. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Your use of the bot to make these changes though has led to several of the languages I looked at to have had "Uralic" removed completely from the top level. That's what happened at Hungarian language. You need to check all these changes to make sure that Uralic didn't disappear on others. --Taivo (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? "Uralic" still displays at Hungarian language on my browser (FF). It's triggered by familycolor=Uralic. I only removed fam1=Uralic because it was redundant and inconsistently applied, not because I disputed it. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It also displays correctly on IE. That's the two most common browsers. If it doesn't display, we have a larger compatibility issue that needs to be addressed. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Redundancy is often a good thing. Unless the redundancies are conflicting, I wouldn't remove them. They often serve a useful function. In this case, where one sees "lang2" the obvious question is, "Where is 'lang1'?" That's what confused me--I wasn't looking at the templates per se, but at the coding. I saw "lang2" without a "lang1". So I really don't think you should be removing the "lang1" coding even if it is redundant. It's very useful. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it usually doesn't do any harm. I've come across a few cases where it had conflicted, so I've been removing 'fam1' unless there was an overt reason for it (family color is areal, like American or Papuan, etc.) I've now turned off that change in AWB. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Finnic languages ?[edit]

I've just created this from a redirect, noticing it was missing, though thinking on it seems very unlikely it never had one and looking at what appeared in my watchlist you recently deleted a page here to make way for moving the page. Could you have deleted the talk page as you were moving things around?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that the talk page failed to move with the article. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cached page on Japanese Content Farm[edit]

Peterstrempel advised that you had tried several times without success to have this page removed. I would just like to thank you for your assistance with this matter its been greatly appreciated. Bgrinter (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

dash moves related to Mexican–American War[edit]

Kwami, as you know perfectly, the article [[Mexican–American War] was recently moved to Mexican-American War Using a hyphen instead of a dash. There was a sucessful request for move, and then a second request for move that didn't get consensus to revert the move. Then Cwenger moved one of the related articles from its spaced form to its dashed form in order to fit its main article, namely List of U.S. Army, Navy and Volunteer units in the Mexican–American War [10].

And today you have reverted the move[11] and you have replaced the hyphen with a dash [12]. That is incredibly WP:POINTy, that article's name was never spelled with a dash.

Go read MOS:STABILITY and the arbitration principles linked in it. If you, or anyone else tries to change any related article back to dashes then I will report him/her to edit warring noticeboard in order to get him blocked for edit-warring over stylistic issues. I hope I made myself clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've made yourself very clear: You're a hypocrite. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tense-aspect-mood for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tense-aspect-mood 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/Tense-aspect-mood 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 good 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Truthstein (talkcontribs) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfair edit war warning[edit]

I made some changes to the 'Ganges' article. You then sent me an edit war warning

I made these changes with proper reasoning. However, Mr. Credible simply came and undid my contribution without any justification whatsoever. So I reverted it. Note: I even started a discussion about this on the discussions page regarding this matter. I didn't revert the vandalism on the Ganges page more than three times to avoid an edit war. So far, I have not committed anything that is not permitted in wikipedia. I believe it would be unfair to block me and I request you to take back this edit warning. If you read the discussions page of the Ganges article and look at the edit history of that article, you will understand that Mr. Credible has been editing without justification and kept reverting my edits over and over again without any reasoning. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Heloworld321 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is long-standing consensus that we use the universal form of the name, which is Ganges. If you wish to change that consensus, you need to convince people of your POV. Given the amount of ink that's been spilled on this already, I don't think your chances are good, but you're welcome to try. However, trying to force your POV on others through edit warring will only get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is nothing long standing. The name historical. It is a just matter of time before it changes.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. But WP:crystal ball. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you close moved pages?[edit]

Hi Kwami. Would you mind closing the move request for the pages you moved at Talk:Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry#Requested move? Thanks in advance. –CWenger (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your warning to editor opposing your stance on Ganga X Ganges debate[edit]

You are an admin, and this refers to your action here[13], isn't it a little too harsh? The editor is a new account only 36 edits[14], couldn't he have had an explanation of the various issues, Edit War, your Admin Status, what the rules are and what action could be taken if they are broken, all this in English and not Wikipedia Jargon. Please consider the above. More over since you have a view in opposition to the edits that this user is making. BTW have you checked Sue Gardner on the issue? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't seem harsh to me. Perhaps I've just been here too long. — kwami (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Buru language[edit]

Just to let you know that someone will remove that redlink sooner or later, and that someone could be I :-) Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Check 'what links here' before you do. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
and? I was thinking about redlink in a dab. Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I meant links to the red link. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice to You RE: Comment I Made Disagreeing with a Position of Yours :-)[edit]

Hi Kwami:

I hope this note finds you and your loved ones well. I'm posting here to let you know that I named you directly as someone with whom I (respectfully) disagreed. The comment was made WITHIN a more general statement of mine in strong support for the position of User:Kww ... if that makes any sense :-O

Knowing you, there's NO DOUBT you're ALREADY quite familiar with the thread, but I also think fairness, Wikipolicy, our Wikifriendship, and common courtesy ALL make it mandatory that I make sure you get direct notice from me. I'd particularly encourage you to look again ASAP, not just because of MY (rather lightweight) comments, but also in case you haven't seen the "suggestion" that you personally be included in the "list of proposed topic-banned editors, for completely reversing the meaning of Kww's post".

In any case, the whole mess is located at

With no offense whatsoever meant to you, Kwami, and with great respect for both yours AND Tony's obvious expertise that is FAR beyond mine in the area "complained" about, I nevertheless remain

Your Wikifriend: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful when renaming articles[edit]

Hello, I see you renamed Algerine class minesweeper to Algerine-class minesweeper. Please be aware that this broke the Commons link : {{Commonscat}} defaults to expecting the linked Commons category to have the same name i.e. Category:Algerine class minesweeper. If the article name is now different to the Category name, you need to make the Commons link explicit i.e. {{Commons category|Algerine class minesweeper}}. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mann language[edit]

Hi there! Would you please clarify this edit of yours? For the source, refer to the language's entry at Ethnologue. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Mande languages have that. While they may be NC, that's not been demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. See Mande languages#Classification. I'm working on a new African-language map, which will color Mande an a possible separate family. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I was not aware of the disagreement within the field. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

World Esperanto Conference host countries[edit]

Hi there! Would it be possible for you to upload to Commons this map you created, in order to use it in the French article about Esperanto Universal Congresses? Thanks a lot. — SGC.Alex (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bien sûr. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
“Dankon!” ;-)SGC.Alex (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Incubator link[edit]

Hello. Why did you remove the {{incubator}} template? We should encourage users who might know that language to participate in that test wiki. SPQRobin (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? There are incubator links for languages with no speakers under the age of 80. What's the point? — kwami (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Could be, but this is a language with about 300,000 speakers according to Ethnologue. It does make sense here. SPQRobin (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE leave lung cancer articles alone, Kwami ...[edit]


PLEASE!!!!! We have been through this 20 times already! There are some 16 million OTHER articles in Wikipedia for you to change dashes/hyphens in. I'm BEGGING you, Kwami - STOP.

If you just CANNOT STOP, for some psychological reason, then PLEASE try to save the lung cancer articles for a point in time AFTER you have completed thing kind of thing in the other 15,900,000 or so articles.

Thank you very much for your consideration in this regard..

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, this was brought up for discussion and it was agreed that 'small-cell' etc. should be hyphenated. That is normal English punctuation, and we certainly shouldn't use misleading punctuation in cases of life-threatening disease! It's wrong to say it's small when it's not small, or to say it's large when it's not large. If you want to change that consensus, then you're welcome to bring it up again, but meanwhile please respect other editors and your readers.
For the 2nd article, "salivary gland–like carcinoma" is what I've found in sources. Another possibility might be "salivary-gland-like carcinoma", if you prefer that. But it isn't a salivary carcinoma, so we shouldn't say that it is. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I STRONGLY (but respectfully) DISAGREE! there WAS NO CONSENSUS, and in fact, you and Tony1 were OUTVOTED by about 8-2, with myself, Axl, Doc James, My Core Competency is Competence, Colin, and a few others were AGAINST YOU ON THIS. And "small-cell" is RARELY EVER HYPHENATED. I have read NEARLY EVERY PAPER WRITTEN on these subjects over the past 35 years - I KNOW.
In fact, you once promised me you would clean up the HUGE MESS YOU MADE of the others. YOU DID NOT, and I've been working for days preparing a systematic way to go about it. Basically, you have TOOK A GIANT CRAP on me, for no reason, and you KEEP DOING IT.
God, Kwami - I just don't understand why do you have to do this? Its WRONG! All the world standards DO NOT DO THIS! Can't you do ALL THE OTHER ARTICLES IN WIKIPEDIA FIRST, and just save the lung cancer-related ones for LAST? Is that too much to ask? Why do you have to do THESE?

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you count 8-to-2. There was a clear majority in favor of retaining hyphenation to clarify radically misleading names. The last comments (by the med editors, not Tony or me) were that we should hyphenate such cases, and there was silent consent after that. I will continue to hyphenate such cases. Doing anything else would be a severe disservice to our readers. They aren't as familiar with the terminology as you.
This isn't a crap on you: These are not your articles.
What difference would saving them till last make? Does the acceptability of punctuation depend on when it is done? — kwami (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Normally, Kwami, you are EXTREMELY astute and accurate and honest in your assessments and arguments. However, your allegations above are PATENTLY FALSE. Those folks I mentioned WERE AGAIONST YOU, there is NO WAY you can say differently in good faith. THEY SAYS SO IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

It's QUITE obvious, in my opinion, you're NOT going to argue, negotiate, or cooperate on this in good faith, as is made obvious by "The Sun Rises in the East"-type, COLD HARD FACT that, in those posts, ALL THOSE PEOPLE that I mentioned TOLD YOU THEY WERE AGAINST IT, IN PLAIN ENGLISH!!!

I BELIEVE THE FACTS ARE: (1) you did the original changes without any consensus, and you SHOULD HAVE KNOWN to seek consensus on something like that; (2) when called on it, you QUICKLY tried to finagle some sort of "talk-30-seconds-and-call it-consensus", which was NOT a consensus, as you were told later; (3) in fact, you went EVEN WAY FAR BEYOND this "imaginary consensus" when you started doing "clear-cell", "basal-cell", "giant-cell", and others, CONTRARY EVEN TO YOUR OWN, IMAGINARY consensus, (4) when you were called on it the first time, you ADMITTED you had erred, and agreed to clean up the mess you made (when asked by me and others), then DIDN'T KEEP YOUR WORD, and still haven't, (5) now you are doing THE SAME THING WITH A DIFFERENT ENTITY ... without consensus. I submit that the above-detailed behavior STINKS, sir!


Hell, just forget it, Kwami. You're not going to play fair, nor nice. That much is evident. You like your power on here, that much is quite evident from your record here.

So you just go ahead and hyphenate them all, and while you're at it, WRITE THEM YOURSELF, sir. I'm not putting up with this idiocy anymore. Congratulations on running off the best lung cancer pathology writer this project had (if I do say so myself).

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're accusing me of acting in bad faith, when you either are not aware of the discussion, or have chosen to ignore it?
I'll hyphenate the ones we agreed to hyphenate, and no more. As agreed.
You're going to leave because of a disagreement over punctuation? It would seem you have no actual commitment to the articles you claim to care about.
BTW, if you publish an article in the real world, it will first be reviewed by your editor. Who might change things like punctuation. Just a heads up. — kwami (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The agreement was that you leave ALL medical articles alone. We wish them to reflect the medical literature. That was what consensus was.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the agreement was that we continue to hyphenate "small-cell carcinoma" etc. because it is so misleading without hyphenation. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the link as the one conversation I read only showed 2 agreed with this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Here, on the medical MOS talk page, Tony, Colin, and myself were for, Axl was against, and whatamIdoing was in between. (My moves being discussed covered a broader range than just the size-cell cancer articles.) — kwami (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let ask Colin himself as that was not my reading of what he wrote. WAID was clear that in her opinion you where not to make further edits.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Doc James asked me to respond. I thought my views in that discussion were quite clear and I thought kwami and I had reached a compromise at 12:56, 7 February 2011. From my research of professional and quality-lay publiciations, a quarter of scientific literature use the term "small-cell carcinoma" which is grammatically preferable to "small cell carcinoma". For that reason, and for that one article alone, I'm not opposed to the change if there is consensus among other editors too. But since most of the professional literature and essentially all of the lay literature does't hyphenate, don't count this as a support vote from me. WAID's "wouldn't be a disaster" seemed like a move towards compromise here too. But for all the other cell carcinomas, there is virtually no use of the hyphenated form in either professional or quality lay literature. Therefore, for those articles, the change in hyphenation is an attempt to use Wikipedia to change the world. It may be well-intentioned, but it is wrong. Names are not the same as prose. If you want to change the world, there are far better things to worry about that hyphenation. I think you have lost perspective on this issue, and for that reason, agree with the suggestions that you find other things to do on WP. Colin°Talk 08:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
By "this one article", do you mean to hyphenate 'small-cell' in one article only, and leave it unhyphenated in all others? And to not hyphenate 'non-small-cell', 'large-cell', or 'giant-cell', when the reasoning is the same?
There is a reason that these names are frequently hyphenated in a lit which generally doesn't bother. And it isn't a change in name, merely one of punctuation, which our sources treat as trivially equivalent. This is like fighting over 'tumor' vs 'tumour' and screaming in all caps that choosing the less-common spelling is 'wrong' or 'inventing a new name'. It's ridiculous. Punctuation isn't to save the world, it's to make our readers' time a bit easier. — kwami (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well the original discussion was on article title so I assumed the references to that article or usages of that name (where small-cell carcinoma appears in article text outside of quotes or citations) would follow. And I repeat, that saying I'm unopposed to it does not mean I think you should do it. But I am opposed to changing the hypenation of all other XXX cell carcinoma/lymphmoa/etc names because 99% of the rest of the world disagrees with you on what name to use. That 99% may be wrong and that 99% might be making their readers time a bit harder but those are not reasons to start calling things something different from the rest of the world. You regard puntuation in a name as something that can be changed based on house style; others disagree with you. Please respect that you do not have consensus for this viewpoint, and being right or wrong isn't important in this regard. Colin°Talk 09:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hyphenation certainly can be changed based on house style: just look at the medical journals, which use all manner of conventions!
So, no hyphenation of the article title for Combined small-cell lung carcinoma?
We also get plenty of hits for hyphenation for large-cell lymphoma. These are all the same construction. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, AGAIN I submit to you (and the others here), and with all due respect, that you are AT BEST mistaken, sir, and at worst being disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and exhibiting bad faith in some of your arguments on this. For example, you say:
"For the 2nd article, "salivary gland–like carcinoma" is what I've found in sources."
May I ask just exactly WHAT source(s) you know of show the "double-dash-thing" in that entity? I personally have NEVER seen one, and I've probably read 95% of the literature on these lung tumors. And I just did a quick search of Pubmed, Google, Google Scholar, AND the WHO Classification of Lung Tumours for this binary => "salivary gland like" AND carcinoma, which failed to reveal A SINGLE ONE WITH THE DOUBLE DASH ... with the exception of the one here, which YOU did AFTER you had promised you would NOT do any more!
      • I also noticed that you DID NOT RESPOND to some of my valid criticisms above ... like WHY were you continuing to go around hyphenating OTHER THINGS besides "small-cell" etc., that you had your "imaginary consensus" for, and after you agreed to stop on the others? This suggests to me EITHER (a) you had a brain fart, or (b) "your word" is not worth the electrons its made of here. ALSO, you did not respond to my point that I recall you PROMISED me and others that you would fix the mess you made more than once, then blew it off. What a crock THAT is.
      • Furthermore, your horribly incorrect "interpretations" of the positions of certain folks (i.e. your "vote counting" on this issue) just seems to me to be so inconsistent with reality that it begs the question of good faith (in my opinion).
      • Respectfully: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
When you scream in all caps and keep "respectfully" accusing me of being an asshole, I'm not inclined to spend much time on you. As for the source, here.[15]kwami (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, Kwami - you are CORRECT on my behavior. Even I find that distasteful, and submit that it is merely indicative of the passion for this, which is something I wouldn't expect you or anyone who is not in the field to understand. So I sincerely and deeply apologize for any and all ad hominem stuff with you. That said, I looked at your source and it is not only inconsistent with what you say, but flat out wrong! => It says "Salivary--gland-like" - you have the double-dash in the wrong place vis-a-vis that source (p. 183)!
No disrespect intended, but please answer my criticisms numbered above, if you would. These are at the crux of the issue. Thanks, and sorry again: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted.
When I looked at that ref earlier today, I think I had access to more of it, and it was consistent. Now I can only access p 473 in the index. That has the dash as in our article. If it's something else on p 183 (which BTW is not listed in the index), then that's a typo: dashes always go where a hyphen or slash would.
For your points, AFAIK I have only been adding hyphens to titles of the format size-cell type, except perhaps when reverting the removal of those hyphens. I'm willing to concede on not punctuating properly because most journals are too lazy to bother with it, but I will argue against something this misleading & confusing. (1) I did have consensus: the consensus of the MOS (and the silent multitudes who follow it) and standard English style guides. You know, the stuff you learn in high-school English class. I didn't expect that fixing punctuation would get people so upset, when the medical lit clearly shows it's correct (even if optional). (2) Thirty seconds? I conceded 90% and thought I got the other 10% in return. Now you want 100%. I'm not willing to do that. (3) I think I did those before the discussion, apart from giant-cell, which is the same size-cell type construction as small-cell. (4) By now I have no idea which articles were involved. Point them out and I'll revert them. (5) You put the hyphen in there, not me. I merely fixed its width per the MOS and standard English style guides. Hmm, a "salivary gland like carcinoma". Doesn't look so good.
I don't understand why this is such a big deal, or how it would prevent you from improving the article. It's the kind of thing that can be changed in half a minute w find&replace and a page move if people decide that's the way to go. — kwami (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
In debate about matching up with MOS or literature, I'm concerned the reader has been overlooked either way. Whatever formatting is used, the choice needs to be explained either in-line or in a footnote, so that readers understand. That would explain the difference between a style choice and the conventional academic usage, or between a conventional academic usage and any likely misinterpretation. So long as that happens, it will matter much less which is selected. Please peruse WP:JARGON, WP:TECHNICAL and WP:MEDMOS#Common_pitfalls for some good guidance on this. Ocaasi c 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
A footnote might be the way to go. It seems minor, considering how often people drop hyphens from familiar phrases, but maybe it would be best. — kwami (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have filled at ANI to get more input on this issue [16]. You reverting multiple editors on multiple pages dealing with the same issue is edit warring even though it may not fulfill the exact definition above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclassified languages[edit]

I have noticed you are a major contributor to articles of indigenous languages of the Americas. I have written some articles for unclassified or poorly known languages for wikipedia in spanish (but I have used almost always sources in english) See here for some non existent here. Maybe we can try to translate someone of them to this wikipedia, but it would be interesting to have your skill, beacause my English is not so good. Davius (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Davius,
Yes, I noticed! I was just looking at that category, and I've already used data and sources from some of the Spanish articles. (Just now at Hodï language.) However, I noticed that several of them (maybe not yours?) seem to be translated from Adelaar or other Cambridge Language Surveys, and I was a bit leery of copyright infringement if we translate them back into English. But sources, data, theories, and basic info are always useful. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
These links are relevant to this discussion.
Wavelength (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Additional relevant links are at User:Wavelength/About languages/Endangered languages.
Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Baltic languages[edit]

There is no rule that "Baltic languages" should be deleted in favor of "Balto-Slavic languages" based on what are, or not, considered genetic nodes. Articles on languages can be compartmentalized however makes sense. Please note there are not separate articles on East and West Baltic languages, those redirect to Baltic languages. You should not point to articles which turn out to be redirects. Best. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? That's what redirects are for. We do it all the time. The classification section is supposed to be about classification. We don't need separate articles for all the nodes. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Danish phonology[edit]

Hi Kwami,

can you please have a look at Talk:Danish phonology#Dubious edits? Thanks! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice Per Policy[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hey - I really HATE that it has come to this ... but it has, so in accordance with policy as I understand it, I am required to let you know that I have mentioned your name in my arguments. Sorry.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Yes, it appears so. Khoikhoi 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Croatian language[edit]

In my edit of the Croatian language article, my reference at the end for "Stjepan Babić & Milan Moguš (2010). Hrvatski pravopis: usklađen sa zaključcima Vijeća za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika. Školska knjiga: Zagreb, Croatia. ISBN 978-953-0-40034-4 (Croatian)" was also for the fact that accent marks are used to disambiguate homographs. It says this on p. 107 of that book and also lists the diacritical marks that I listed. PrisonerOfIce (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they actually used in everyday books and newspapers? — kwami (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't say how common it is, but I have seen them in at least one book (a work of fiction translated from another language). It'd probably be best to verify with someone who has read a lot in Croatian, but I think at least some mention of these diacritical marks is necessary in the section, if at least to notify of their usage in linguistic works and also to give some account of the standard tone and stress on vowels in Croatian (even though this is done in the article Serbo-Croatian phonology, I think something should also be written here). The reason I wrote that they are used to disambiguate (even if not necessarily widely, as writers might avoid situations where they need to) is because this is what it said in the reference, which I take to be reliable/authoritative. "Croatian orthography does not [ever] mark vowel length or pitch accent" is incorrect, at least if it read "Croatian orthography does not usually mark vowel length or pitch accent", because I have seen at least one example where this is otherwise... But I guess it's possible that by chance I have seen the only fictional book published in Croatia that uses these diacritics... PrisonerOfIce (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you bring it up on the talk page, say just what you said to me, and, if you remember, mention the book where you saw this? There are several knowledgeable people watching the article. (I'm not one of them!) The reason I'm being so anal about this is that we constantly have people adding all sorts of bullshit to the article, SOMETIMES IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!!!!, and I'd rather not try to judge which additions are crap and which are legitimate. I'm not trying to lump you in with the all-caps crowd, but I'm sure there are several Croatian editors who will know exactly what you mean, and how common it is. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice to leave controversial topic areas alone with MOS title changes[edit]

There's a consensus developing on ANI that your name changes in the face of objection from (for example) the medical community here on Wikipedia, hyphenating the titles and so forth, isn't entirely constructive.

MOS is important, but there are plenty of topical exceptions and expansions on the main MOS, and plenty of projects with informal exceptions or expectations. We need to balance respecting MOS and balancing the topic and editor experience specific alternates. There are significant differences in style across professions and areas of study.

If this was a one time thing I don't think anyone would care, but you seem (from your talk page history) to hit another new area that causes significant argument every few months, and the medical area (tumor / cancer article names) seems to be one where you raised significant objections and pushback and don't seem to have listened to it very effectively.

I think that the easiest way around this would be for you to just step away from the topic areas where you see significant objections from the editing community. We have plenty of other areas where MOS improvements are welcome and not controversial. If you want to engage in policy discussions with the participants in areas you disagree, that would be constructive too. But if there's widespread disagreement with MOS or with your conduct in an area you should probably stop making changes there until consensus develops.

This is advice not direction or an administrator action / community action. But I think that a number of admins are inclined to conclude that if this keeps up, one of those may be needed. I would rather give the advice and see you avoid further conflict rather than let it escalate further and prompt a topic ban.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I stopped arguing with the ALL CAPS guy several days ago. He's adding content, so IMO we can leave him his foibles. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You know, Kwami, I HATED this whole mess! I didn't WANT to fight with you, and I told you more than once I respected you GREATLY for your INCREDIBLE knowledge of languages, and for your zillion contributions to Wikipedia. I BEGGED you to just go somewhere else, almost exactly as Mr. Herbert did, above, albeit with my usual "goofy Uploadvirus flair". However, I don't recall a single instance where you were even HALF nice to me, or said you respected MY knowledge or background. So yeah, I got mad. You've been into these fights A LOT, and not just with me. But look - I post here on your page to extend an olive branch to you. I would like to just forget all the hard feelings, if you would do so as well. As far as my "all caps" goes, I told you its just for EMPHASIS - I would've thought that you would LIKE that, as a person who is all about increasing understanding in language. I propose to you, in good faith, that the occasional use of "all caps" for single words or short phrases ADDS MEANING through emphasis. I'm serious about this - give me your honest opinion as the most knowledgeable dude in lunguistics I've ever run across. Yeah, its against "tradition", but from a practical perspective, isn't it useful?
In closing, I won't post you any more, if that's what you want. I did want you to know that I'm NOT some nut case, just passionate, like you, and that I was indeed SORRY about all the problems. Good luck to you and yours. With best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Cliff, I don't take offense at the all caps, and I don't mind you posting here. You have, however, repeatedly accused me of acting in bad faith, of editing for SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT rather than trying to improve WP. As if I think adding hyphens is somehow going to make me a BIG MAN. That's not the kind of attitude that encourages me to be nice. And I respect your intelligence, knowledge, and CONTRIBUTIONS, and am glad you have made the improvements you have. I just think you need a COPY EDITOR. We all do, even good writers (which I am NOT), because it's hard to see our own writing objectively. If I seem disrespectful, it's because you've been so recalcitrant on that point, not because I doubt your medical competence. If you were to write for a journal, they would expect you to follow their house style, and if you didn't, they would revise it accordingly. Would that prompt you to WITHDRAW your submission? I really am at a loss as to how WP should be any different, but as I've said, I'd rather have your articles with their typographical blemishes than to to not have them at all. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, Kwami. And to answer your question, YES - I would withdraw my submission if they wanted to FORCE me to insert hyphenation where 99% of the other literature does not. And I'm convinced that you have really missed the point of our "fight", and that you REPEATEDLY miss the point with others as well - such as on the Chinese language move dispute, and the ship naming dispute, and this cancer naming dispute, and others - WHAT MADE US MAD is that (a) you did it without input in the first place, then (2) when asked to stop, you tried to manufacture consensus that was not there, and (3) after agreeing to stop, went ahead with renaming and moving. THOSE behaviors are what made people mad EVERY TIME. But I guess our dispute is over, so no sense hammering at it any more, I guess you just cannot, or will not, understand. Good luck to you, sir.
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again, allegations I was operating in bad faith. I can only assume that reflects your own mind.
And no, not 99% of the lit. More like 70%, as was concluded at med MOS. Perhaps, like you, I should assume bad faith and that you're manufacturing statistics, but I haven't assumed that. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cia-Cia text in hangul (cover).jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Cia-Cia text in hangul (cover).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Languages and stuff...[edit]

Hi Kwami, I was trying to mediate a conflict at Talk:Torlaks and I ended up checking edits of one IP that you rightfully reverted already. However, I restored part of his edit at Kajkavian dialect that was unsourced and with flavour of nationalism. I understand what is meant to be said there, but there is certainly a better way for it. Please let me know if there is a problem with it :) Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. The previous version did strike me as odd, but I didn't have time to delve into it. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


You should WP:HISTMERGE Inclusive and exclusive we into clusivity. Since you're an admin, you have the tools, but if the instructions are confusing, you should probably ask someone for help, e.g. User:CBM is quite the expert on this. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merged. — kwami (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Finnic languages[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami,

I'm not so sure about your recent edits on the Finnic languages overall on wikipedia. I mean do you really think just because "Ethnologue 16 adopted the Finnish classification" means that all related wikipedia articles should be exclusively based on it? Does it mean there's an established consensus now among the majority of linguistics in the world, saying that fr example "Finno-Volgaic or Fenno-Volgaic is a defunct hypothesis..."
For finnic languages in general I attempted to list all possible theories available internationally so that the reader could have an overview what's up with this. But for some reason all those interpretations have disappeared from wikipedia some time ago. So I'm not sure what exactly is happening with this, why doesn't the reader of wikipedia deserve to know this?

Finnic languages by
Collinder, 1965
Finnic languages by
Austerlitz 1968
Finnic languages by
Sauvageot & Menges 1973
Finnic languages by
Harms 1974
Finnic languages by
Vogelin & Vogelin 1977

--Termer (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not "just because".
That chart is still there, at Finno-Permic languages, the level in the classification it addresses.
AFAIK, Finno-Volgaic truly is defunct. The others may not be.
Generally we base our classifications on Ethn unless there is reason to depart from it. In this case, there was already an argument for abandoning the traditional classification, and it was perhaps Ethn that was holding us back: There is considerable debate over whether any of the other groups called 'Finnic' are legit; Finnish linguists do not accept them; and now we see Ethn. going along. It's not so much us following Ethn. as Ethn. following a growing consensus that the traditional Uralic classification was poorly supported. If we cannot support a family, how are we justified in positing it in our infoboxes, as if it were settled? — kwami (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK, let me put it this way, while the Finnish linguists may debate their language belonging to the same group with Volga Finns, and the Sami, and Ethn. has gone along with it. The genetic studies speak quite opposite and have supported the traditional Finno-Ugric language tree: please read this: (Haplogroup) hg N3 occurs at high frequencies in the Volga-Ural Ugric groups and related Finns, Saami and Estonians @ European Journal of Hyman genetics.
Further on, I found an interesting article on the subject saying the current view with the Finnish elite is that Finns are Western. As Anttonen puts it, ‘The emphasis on the Western-ness of the Finns is a recent phenomenon’ rendering Finland’s joining the European Union a ‘return to Europe.’ This leaves those who still argue that Finns are originally from Mongolia in the academic wilderness..
So my point is, there clearly is a debate about "finnic languages" and I'm just saying we on wikipedia should describe disputes instead of listing one theory as a fact. So therefore please consider revisit your recent edits on finnic languages.
Thanks! --Termer (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, interesting article, but genes have very little to do with it. Languages aren't inherited. Finnish being Uralic is plenty Eastern; I personally don't see what difference the subgrouping would have. Also, when there is not good support for a group, it's generally best to go with an agnostic approach. If a study comes along that actually supports Permo-Finnic or whichever (a decent possibility; that may be the most promising of these intermediate clades), then we can easily restore it. All these Uralic groups are rather like Italo-Celtic: may be true, but IMO (and now evidently Ethnologue's as well) the evidence isn't good enough to present it *as* true in the info boxes. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TAM Rewrite[edit]

Hi Kwami,

I have some big concerns with the Tense-Aspect-Mood article you'd originally written last year. My issue isn't with your quality of writing or the need to document the topic, but rather how it's written. Also, there are HUGE problems with much of the information on which that approach is based. It's not that your writing got it wrong, but rather that those particular theories fail to account for several variables that basically make them useless when it comes down to trying to actually use them in linguistic analysis. This is the main reason none of the sourced proposals ever went further than proposal status and why no single TAM system exists today. They just don't work not due to the ideas behind them (they are sound) but because the assumptions that they don't deal with are flawed.

The article needs a full rewrite and I'd to invite you to work on it together with me. There's way more linguistic theory that needs to be covered before a proper rewrite can be done though than what is practical for WP discussion. If you would, please contact me offline as I'd like the chance to discuss the topic with you. This is one of my primary research areas and probably the most frustrating aspect of working within this subfield is that so much of the 'basics' are wrong and the terminology is mostly adapted from other uses. So every little thing you deal with requires almost going back to the very beginning to make sure there are no assumed errors. It's definitely a hassle. Please email me if you'd like: Drew.ward (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I might be able to get to it next week. I don't know which theories you're referring to; perhaps if you could give a few citations for me to read up on I'd have a better idea what your objections are. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Your colleague Taivo is butchering the articles on Balto-Slavic languages [17], [18], removing entire paragraphs that were there for years, all against abundantly cited evidence. He doesn't know much about the topic, and appears to be under the false impression that the notion of Balto-Slavic branch being split into East Baltic, West Baltic and Slavic branch is some kind of a "fringe" theory, despite having me having provided explicit citations in favor of it, by some of the most prominent Balto-Slavicists. I don't know of any modern work today reconstructing some "Proto-Baltic" phase betweeen Balto-Slavic and modern Baltic languages - what used to be referred to as Proto-Baltic was simply merged with the ancestor of Proto-Slavic. Could you please look into the matter a little bit? I'm losing my patience on the talk page, especially since his sudden "interest" in the topic apparently occurrs at the same time as that of several well-known anti-Balto-Slavic pro-Baltic supporters, who appear (unrelatedly) insist that the notion of Balto-Slavic is itself just one of many equally-valid theories (which refutes the "We're the most archaic IE branch" fairy tale). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what I said[edit]

The claim that this follows the MOS is a falsehood employed by a handful of disruptive editors to conceal their destructive campaign. Please stay off my talk page, unless you have something substantive to say. You are an involved editor, with a strong, if unsupported, opinion on this matter; you should not be making posts as if neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was simply warning you, as is polite, before requesting that you be sanctioned for edit warring. I don't know why you continue to repeat obvious falsehoods, as you do here; it serves no purpose that I can see other than discrediting you as a serious editor. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If you request a sanction, I shall support the topic ban proposed for the five of us; if you claim or suggest that you are a neutral admin, I shall request your recall. What obvious falsehood? That Mexican-American is a compound modifier, or that nobody has agreed with you four spelling reformers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Your use of propaganda rather than fact-based argument. You're obviously intelligent enough to know the difference, so please stop playing stupid. And I'll ask you to stay off my talk page unless you're willing to debate this intelligently. — kwami (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You may edit my talk page to answer my question: what obvious falsehood? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"The claim that this follows the MOS is a falsehood", "unsupported opinion". The usual. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Hans Adler and CWanger have gone out of their way to agree that this claim is unsupported by MOS; it is also unsupported by anyone but the four of you. Neither claim, therefore, is obviously false - except to the usual suspects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Still not a factual argument. As you of course know. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a private definition of "factual"? "A factual argument is one Kwamikagami agrees with", perhaps? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's a denial that "factual" means whatever PMAnderson happens to believe in. Come on, unless you have a note from your doctor saying that you have the excuse of being certifiably insane, knock off the bullshit. Why do you even bother? No-one's buying it, and I'm not buying that you actually believe much of what you say. It's simply too ridiculous. I asked you to stay off my talk page unless you were willing to discuss things intelligently. You evidently are not willing to, so stay off. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Welding page moves[edit]

I have reverted the page moves you performed on several welding articles, as I am unaware of any uses of dashed hyphenated versions of these names. Please point to reliable sources that demonstrate the dashed versions to be standard, and gain consensus on the talk pages. --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They aren't dashes, they're hyphens. That's the punctuation used by sources that bother with standard English punctuation. When terms are familiar, we tend to drop hyphens, but as an encyclopedia we can't assume our readers are that familiar with the topic. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course; hyphens. Carbon arc welding is probably your strongest example, as it's less used than GTAW, GMAW, and SMAW. Off the top of my head the hyphen placement you made seems arbitrary, and given the number of current sources that used the non-hyphenated version I'm not sure why there is a rush to change the standard. These aren't bloggers who are not bothering with standard English punctuation, we're talking about major textbook publishers who apparently choose standard terms over "correct" hyphenation. --Spangineerws (háblame) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If I made an error, that's a whole 'nother matter. I was copying the sources I could find, but I could easily be wrong.
It's very common for specialist texts to drop hyphens from terms in their field, because once you're familiar with the terms, the hyphens are no longer necessary. But for outsiders and newbies this can cause confusion. Some journals drop hyphens from terms they think their readers will be familiar with, such as high school students (obviously not meaning school students who are high). Others apply hyphenation rigorously, as they don't want to second-guess their readers' backgrounds. As a general encyclopedia, I think WP should take the latter tack. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Be bold but not reckless[edit]

I've reverted some of your moves. Chemical compounds are never hyphenated, thus always carbon dioxide laser (though always He-Ne laser - because it is a gas mixture, not compound). Ask where not sure, there is no rush. Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that true? The International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research hyphenates krypton-fluoride,[19] Basov & Basov Chemical lasers (Springer-Verlag) hyphenate hydrogen-fluoride,[20] as does the Encyclopedia of physical science and technology.[21] The Journal of chemical physics hyphenates helium-hydride,[22] and there are articles like "Ground State of the Helium-Hydride Ion",[23] all things you reverted. Do you have a ref that chemical compounds aren't hyphenated like any other phrase in English? — kwami (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to run. A quick answer is yes, no hyphens; for every spelling rule it is easy to find deviation on Google (misprints, freaks, non-English speakers, etc). There should be something in IUPAC on that, but IUPAC is not always an authority. An easy test is to search Google Books and look at the dominant spelling, not deviations. Basov was Russian; some of your sources are too old, when conventions were unsettled. Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you see my reply?[edit]

Did you read my reply on my talk page? Please reply there, but I'm curious as to what you think because you've been continuing to argue that trying to changing things at the article level is somehow disruptive and/or dishonest - as if things must change top-down in WP. But that's not how it normally works. Please reply there. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn, there is no escape[edit]

from spelling xxxxs [24] [25]. Not even in essays! Tijfo098 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Template:IPAsym[edit]

Hi. For some reason not immediately clear to me, the {{IPAsym}} template is producing the word "Meepsheep" and a photo of a half-naked woman urinating (File:Wiki-pee02.jpg), which really has absolutely nothing to do with IPA or phonetics. I tried to track down the problem but couldn't do so quickly, so I thought I'd alert you to it since I saw you mentioned on the template's talk page.

Here is an excerpt of the raw HTML from the page, which I believe illustrates the problem.

<p><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"><b><big><a href="/w/index.php?title=User:Meepsheep&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:Meepsheep (page does not exist)">Meepsheep</a></big></b><br /> <a href=""><img alt="Wiki-pee02.jpg" src="" width="400" height="302" /></a><br /> <b><big><a href="/w/index.php?title=User:Meepsheep&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:Meepsheep (page does not exist)">Meepsheep</a></big></b></span></p>

Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem appears to have been vandalism at {{StripWhitespace}}. That vandalism has been reverted, and the template is now protected. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Burmese-Siamese wars[edit]

Hey, Kwamikagami, could you double-check if the format is to the dash between Burmese and Siamese? I've taken a look at other wars, they use the hyphen. Take a look at Russo-Japanese War; First Anglo-Burmese War, etc. If you agree that it should be the hyphen, can you revert the change? Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen is used for prefixes, the dash between independent names. That is, it would be hyphenated if it were Burmo-Siamese wars. That's true for all of war articles apart from the Mexican–American War, which was recently moved after a disputed move discussion. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Hybernator (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Kwami, it would not be possible to go on a crusade with a bot, since a debate would have to be held at each page first. I urge you to reconsider your statement, since the alternative seems to be complete optionality (i.e., no coordiation, no relationship to the sources). Tony (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, once the first page is changed, you could move all the other pages in that field in the name of consistency as well as RS and TITLE policy, all of which trump the MOS. (Or so one would argue.) I really do see this as opening a huge can of worms, the end result of which would be the elimination of dashes down to the LCD of style guides, such as a substitute for em dashes and for page and date ranges. (And I wonder about even those.) If we're going to do that, we might as well just concede the point now, program a bot to eliminate dashes, and save ourselves months of argument.
As for a relationship to the sources, that could mean en-dashing Andean language families but hyphenating Amazonian ones. I don't see the point. If WP:languages continues to opt out of ENDASH, then they should do it across the board; if they sign up, that should also be across the board. Certainly not fought page-by-page according to the preferences or the typographical knowledge of the single linguist who's done any real work (perhaps on a manual typewriter) on some obscure family. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Your take on WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear from your repeated appearances at WP:ANI with controversial hyphen to dash mass edits. In my view the common name of the thing belongs not just in the title but everywhere it is referred to including text. Some exceptional cases may occur where a different name is preferred in the text, perhaps because it is a more technically accurate name or the like. (Maybe for a medical term or a species name.) I can't see that using a dash in article text in contravention to the COMMONNAME title is ever justified, but maybe there is a case for it. Quale (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see a conflict. COMMONNAME does not concern itself with formatting. For example, they say "H. H. Asquith (not Herbert Henry Asquith)", but there's no reason to think that "HH Asquith" wouldn't be just as acceptable, if that's how we were formatting initials. There's no substantial difference. Same with "Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)". "Guinea Pig" with title case would be just as acceptable if we decided we needed title case for common names. En dashes for hyphens are a matter of style, not an actual difference in naming. They also advise avoiding "ambiguous or inaccurate names" even if they are more common, which is arguably the case for en dashes if you really see them as creating distinct names. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. If the hyphen vs. dash decision were merely a matter of style then it would have some importance, but surely you and your cohorts would not raise it to the life or death struggle that is now an arbitration case. The name of a thing is just as subject to WP:V and WP:RS as any other property we might discuss in a wikipedia article. I'm very disappointed in your attempts to ignore WP:UNDUE when it suits your prescriptionist agenda to force wikipedia to adopt spellings and names that are not in agreement with actual use in the majority of high-quality sources. When possible, the choice of hyphen or dash should be decided by looking at what the majority of high-quality sources do. Quale (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be a rather disagreeable person. I disagree with you, therefore I must be dishonest, and have hidden conspiratorial motives. Did it ever occur to you that people can honestly hold opinions that differ from yours?
I maintain my position. If it were an actual difference of naming, then it would be correct or incorrect according to the official name of whatever-it-is. This is indeed the case in chemical nomenclature, and in some legal references. However, in most cases different texts punctuate differently depending on the style guide they follow. This is like using sentence case vs. title case for books. So long as no one punctuation is required to convey the name correctly, then it is merely a matter of style. As a matter of style, I would like to conform to a set house style, as I would expect of any professional publication. You may disagree with that, and that is your prerogative, but you have presented no factual argument for your case. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question + Request[edit]

On which account have you moved the page "Asadabadi" to "Al-Afghani"? Are you sure that you have at all counted the number of "Support"s and "Oppose"s? (The proposal, by User:Xashaiar only reflects his demonstrated lack of knowledge of anything regarding Iran and Iran's history.1)) If you have counted, then count again, as it is overwhelmingly evident that you have counted incorrectly. Further, of the two people who supported the move, which one provided any evidence in support of his/her claims? One of them, the "American-Afghan", only made unfounded claims --- just go through his/her texts: he/she either accused others of nationalism, or has filled his/her comments with unfounded and outlandish claims! Inspect and find out whether he cites any references in support of his/her claims? (Does he/she give for instance an external link to a text that would contain something resembling his/her claims?) He/She claims that Professor Nikki Keddie were biased! Does he/she provide any evidence that this were the case? I believe that the move as you have carried out, is just arbitrary and thus against all the written rules of Wikipedia. I therefore hereby ask you to revert the move.

1) User:Xhashaiar is driven by motives that I do not wish to go into --- for a long time he opposed putting the name of any other country except Iran in the list of countries celebrating Nowruz! Just consult the talk page of Nowruz, here and here ("On Goldfish" -- the original is this.) and notice that he clearly seems unable to make distinction between historical facts and his fantasies --- his addition to the main text, namely, "a bowl of water with goldfish (life within life, and the sign of Pisces which the sun is leaving). As an essential object of the Nowruz table, this goldfish is also "very ancient and meaningful" and with Zoroastrian connection." consists of a sequence of blatant lies, as clearly evidenced by this ("On Goldfish").

--BF 09:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The count is irrelevant. As for the arguments, you may be correct: but then you should have carried the day when the original RfM was made. I reverted the move because it was made after the RfM had been closed as 'no consensus'. It had nothing to do with who was factually right. Demonstrate that there's consensus among English sources for your preferred name, and the article will (or at least should) be moved. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What is that kind of an answer?! This is an encyclopaedia! What matters is truth, not the time I joined the discussion! This is not about me, you, or someone else! You write as though you where a pre-programmed machine. As I have convincingly argued, supporting my arguments with reliable references, the name of the man in question is not "Al-Afghani" --- the proposition that the name were "Al-Afghani", for someone from a very traditional family born in the 19th century in Asadabad is not only false, but farcical --- just read the history, by the time Asadabadi was born there was no such country as "Afghanistan" for someone to be named "Al-Afghani" --- at least take the trouble and read the relevant entries in Wikipedia (as I have repeatedly said, Iran wanted Asadabadi extradited to Iran, so he just introduced himself by various false names for the sake of not being extradited to Iran, where he would be mercilessly executed; the Qajars saw him as the most dangerous of their opponents.) I therefore say once more: your move must be reverted, not because I say so, but because your move amounts to perpetuating a falsehood. --BF 09:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
ps. As for demonstration, I have already done so! You simply have not read my pertinent texts. First, all sources agree that he was born in "Asadabad". Second, traditionally, it was a general rule that people (specifically, people of some social status) were named after the place of their birth. In my comments I have given several examples, demonstrating that the tradition lives on even to this day. Incidentally, it is not up to you to question me here, or anywhere! You are here not for judgement, but to follow rules. There was a due process for the move, and you made the move by the mentality as reflected in this outrageous statement: "The count is irrelevant." The onus is on those who supported the move to come up with what you are now asking from me! They proposed the move, not I! --BF 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Kwami: What is going to happen? I have not an infinite amount of time at my disposal to wait for you. Are you going to effect the reversion? Otherwise, I will have no alternative but to raise the issue of you effecting a name change without any justifiable reason elsewhere. --BF 10:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
ps. I remind you that "no consensus" had meant NO CHANGE! But you did change the name, despite there being no consensus for that!!! --BF 10:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to be clear on the concept of a cooperative enterprise. There was a discussion to move to the name you wanted. It was closed as "no consensus". Someone went ahead and moved it anyway, despite the lack of consensus. There were complaints, and I reverted the move as improper. That's not an evaluation of your argument, only of the way the article was moved. If you wish it to be moved to your preferred name, then argue it on the basis of the merits of the name. Your claim that if there's no consensus for a move, we move anyway claiming "due process" and then claim there's no consensus to move back, is, frankly, bullshit. — kwami (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Kwami: You are rude to the extreme! "B.." is something that you must be using at home --- Wikipedia is not the gutter that you seem have been raised in! Reserve these despicable words for your conversations with your family members, if you have any! Bah!!! --BF 11:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You're the one coming here being rude, making demands, spouting nonsense, and expecting me to obey your whims. I meant the word exactly as it was defined, if you had cared to follow the link. You don't get your way here by making demands, you get it by convincing other people that you're correct. Telling the opposite of the truth to convince me of your POV is in itself insulting (not that I was actually insulted), because you suggest that I'm too stupid to understand the conversation. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is my last message on this page: You are so unschooled and rude that all you have in your defence is a Wikipedia entry! I feel utterly sick to have ever encountered you! Just revolting! The place just stinks of rottenness. As for my so-called "demand", how could I ever have known about the pre-history of the name change at issue?
ps. You changed your wording while I was writing this. The things that you now say about I suggesting that you were "stupid", and the like, are just patently untrue --- you are just making up excuses to justify your utter rudeness. --BF 12:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You were involved in the 2nd discussion, which was an objection that the move to Asadabadi was made after the request to move it there had been closed as 'no consensus'. You were actually the first person to respond to that objection, which was even called "Requested move (2)". The 1st debate is displayed right there on the talk page above it. I explained that was my reason when I closed the 2nd request, and I explained it again when you posted here. There are people here on WP who invert the facts in their arguments (they will attack someone, and then complain about being attacked, etc.) and I thought you must be one of them: It never dawned on me that you might have not understood that there was no consensus to move the page to Asadabadi after that had been stated four times in four different ways. For that you have my apology. That is the reason I moved the page back to al-Afghani: the request to move it to Asadabadi was closed with no consensus, and then someone moved it anyway. I reverted that improper move so that the proper procedure can be followed: those making the argument to move need to demonstrate their case to the satisfaction of the community. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Ani#Request_for_taking_administrative_action_against_an_editor_using_gutter_language_on_Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoi. Please note[edit]

...that I have reverted your recent edit in Sumerian language, as you failed to provide a decent reasoning for your removal of a conceptually correct category. Sumerian is indeed a language isolate, which can be securely stated as the text corpus of Sumerian with about 6 million words is large enough to observe a wide range of the lexicon and grammar and therefore makes it possible to research the genetic affiliation of that language. Most people (except the Nostraticists, of course) agree that no other known language in the world is related to Sumerian which makes it a clear cut case of a language isolate. If you have more questions about this, just drop me a note. --Thogo (Talk) 00:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But Sumerian is in the Sumerian category, and the Sumerian category is in the language-isolate category, so as you have it it's listed twice. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You should have written that in the summary line. ^^ --Thogo (Talk) 14:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


It makes more sense to have the article pages before you disambiguate, also there should be at least three items, if there are only two, you should use a "see also" header on each page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but we do have scores of language–people dab pages; it's even recommended in the naming guidelines. Not much point in this case, I suppose. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nilo-Saharan languages[edit]

Kwami, you might want to take a look at what has been happening at the Nilo-Saharan languages article recently. I don't expect you to agree with me, but you might want to comment anyway. (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything in particular? — kwami (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The content dispute between the dynamic IP address (me) and Taivo. But of course, I completely respect it if you can't be bothered commenting. I'm pretty well inclined to drop the whole thing at this stage, but the talk page discussion might still benefit from your comments. (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Darien, CT[edit]

  • I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "possible" except that I did forget to replace the pronunciation's slashes (broad transcription) with square brackets (narrow). In any case, I intended to write a narrow-transcription based upon pronunciation in the local dialect, in which [ɛə] is quite a common diphthong. You can read about it here: Northern cities vowel shift#Raising and tensing of /æ/. Wolfdog (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I thought it was just an oversight. We should perhaps have both? — kwami (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I restored your local pronunciation, added your link, and restructured the section, as it was a bit repetitive. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup. Looks good. Wolfdog (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edmond Halley[edit]

Hi, the page Edmond Halley shows a quite peculiar (and unreferenced) pronunciation of Halley surname: /ˈhɔːliː/. Jones (1950) and Jones (1977) both have /ˈhælɪ/ (/ˈhæli/ in the former, but it's just a matter of transcription). Kenyon–Knott (1953, American English) has the very same pronunciation /ˈhælɪ/. I wonder whether /ˈhɔːliː/ is a modern/regional pronunciation or has been completely invented by a Wikipedia user. Regards.--Carnby (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's evidently the pronunciation Halley himself is thought to have used. Is it no longer sourced? I'll take a look. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the ref was removed from the Halley's Comet article here, arguing that the Flamsteed Astronomy Society is not a credible source. They had a side window saying,
How to pronounce ‘Halley’
Today we mostly say it ‘Hal-lee’. Many, especially in the USA, say ‘Hay-lee’. Edmond himself probably said ‘Haw-lee’
Did Halley prefer a spelling that would suggest that? I don't know. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The same article says about things named after Halley (again unreferenced):
These are generally either /ˈhæli/, rhyming with valley, or /ˈheɪli/ "Hailey", though some people will use Halley's supposed pronunciation of his own name, /ˈhɔːli/ "Hawley".
Notice words like "supposed", "some people" &c. I would trust Jones, Gimson and Kenyon–Knott more and use /ˈhælɪ/ in all cases; a note about alternative pronunciations can be added, though.--Carnby (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone today uses that pronunciation, so I have no problem with it being removed from the comet article. But if it's true, it should be in his bio. Our source didn't say "supposed", they just presented it as the most likely pronunciation. You could always write and ask them why they think that; it could be OR on their part, but they may know of historical records they didn't bother to reference. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you'll consider the NYT a RS for this, but it says Contemporary accounts refer to him as Hailey, Haley, Halley, Haly, Hawley, Hawly and Hayley, and presumably pronunciations varied as widely. ... rhyming with bawley [is] favoured by Colin Ronan, one of Halley's biographers.[26]kwami (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The page now seems to be OK. Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Respell, html vs template.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Respell, html vs template.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Kwami, please clean up your move of Taíno and the associated articles. Taíno now just redirects to Taíno people, and I can't even see where the dab page wound up.--Cúchullain t/c 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I had cleaned it up, but someone partly reverted it. I'll put it back. — kwami (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what happened now. Thanks for clearing it up.--Cúchullain t/c 13:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominal group[edit]

Since YOU want to change a long-standing wording, why don't YOU take it to talk? You are acting irresponsibly, and it is objectionable. We know you are quite familiar with the conceptual framework and have expressed an "I don't like it" attitude. This aggressive reverting is unacceptable. And your campaign to eradicate links to the article is, frankly, childish. Please desist, since you surely don't want links to "noun phrase" and "English noun phrase" removed on the sly from articles, do you? Tony (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tony, but the term is not relevant. We shouldn't go around adding linguistic jargon to policy pages just to—what, increase the number of links to the article? Despite repeated requests, you have never said what benefit it provides. If there's no benefit, it shouldn't be there. If you want it, you need to justify it.
In your edit summary, you said, "hardlyl obscure, and covers both nouns and noun phrases in a highly systematic way". Let's take "obscure". The OED uses the term "noun phrase" 41 times. It has "nominal group" only twice, but it's not defined and the quotes are inadequate to understand it. That's pretty obscure. From the article, best I can tell it's just a synonym for "noun phrase", it which case it's redundant; I just checked Crystal's dictionary, and he says "group" is a synonym for "phrase" as well. If there's any difference, it would appear to be within the details of the Hallidayan framework, which is obscure in the extreme—how can we expect our readers to have any idea about such things?
Then you say it's "highly systematic". How is it any more systematic than "noun phrase"? And if it is, how can you argue that's not obscure? — kwami (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Kwami, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude is anti-wiki and and unacceptable. You are on record as expressing some kind of deep distaste for systemic functional grammar, and here it is again ("the Hallidayan framework, which is obscure in the extreme"): that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't thrust your personal opinion around as though it's the only one. Crystal is hardly a sophisticated grammarian. Chomsky is not a linguist, as far as I can see, but a psychologist. Rather than drumming on about your highly personalised views, why not work at improving the pretty dreadful excuse for an article that is "Noun groupphrase", not to mention "English noun groupphrase" (have you read it?). BTW, where does "Noun groupphrase" introduce the metafunctions that are basic to understanding how grammar works? Tony (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I have no distaste for functional grammar, and this isn't about my views. (And though I agree with you that Chomsky is hardly a linguist, he's even less a psychologist: His linguistic nonsense is psychologically untenable as well.) What I object to is having a content fork for NP just because Halliday decided to invent a new term for it. The normal solution for such situations is to start a unified article with "A noun phrase, also known as a nominal group, is ...". Shall we now create a duplicate article for active voice at "operative voice"? Shall we have parallel articles for "high" and "low" vowels alongside those for "open" and "close" vowels?
Halliday's terminology is obscure: it's used by Halliday and presumably his followers. Just about everyone else, including other functional linguists and the dictionaries our readers have access to, uses 'noun phrase' for the same thing. Many of our readers will not have a firm grasp on what a noun phrase is, which is why we say "a noun or a noun phrase" rather than the more precise "a noun phrase" to begin with. To add an obscure synonym does nothing but provide something else for our readers to scratch their heads over.
By "noun group" I suppose you mean "noun phrase"? The functional linguists I'm familiar with do not speak of constituents introducing "metafunctions" that are the basis for how grammar works, so I have no idea what any of that means—it's as obscure to me as Chomsky. But any insights a "noun phrase" offers to the functioning of grammar is going to depend on the theoretical framework, just like anything else, and whether we call it an "NP" or a "nominal group" is irrelevant. Or, if I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong. — kwami (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm tired and used the wrong term for "noun phrase". You seem to be keen to marginalise SFG, but it is a mainstream grammar that has had significant influence in grammar, linguistics, and of course more than a few school education systems, some of them in US states. It is not a matter of semantics or terms, but of a conceptual framework that is almost diametrically opposed to that of formalistic grammars. Both need to be represented in the en.WP. There would be huge problems in conflating both systems into composite articles—confusing for readers, to start with. Nominal groups fit into an entire system that is conceived around the mapping onto clauses of three metafunctions. I find it hard to accept that anyone with knowledge of SFG would be unaware of the metafunctions; that's a hard one. If you are suggesting that all formalistic grammar articles be conflated into SFG articles, it would still be necessary to introduce the SFG framework at the outset of each article. I don't see how this would work in a way that aids readers' comprehension.
To you as an individual linguist, I urge you to give the conceptual framework another try. Theme and rheme are a good start, and the way they map onto the given and the new is fascinating (indeed, the basis of a lot of humour in English). Another good starting place would be "Beneath the clause". I do admit that SFG is complex and voluminous, but grammar is, isn't it? I am interested in talking through/around a few issues with you on the comparisoin of these very different systems ... and how Noun phrase can be improved so that it represents the history and current state of formalistic grammars. It doesn't do that well at the moment, IMO. Tony (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with SFG, or at least not with the terminology (I expect most of the ideas have been picked up by the lit I am familiar with), but then SFG is just one functionalist approach among many. I'm not trying to marginalize it, I just don't see how it's relevant to the MOS. NP is not a term of formal linguistics, it's simply a term in grammar, and using it in the MOS does not advantage one faction over the other. Some individual schools have come up with their own terms, but NP remains the basic term in English, used by most functionalists as well as by most formalists. I had no idea that the nominal group article was supposed to be an answer to formal linguistics; when I read it, I saw it simply as a description of a noun phrase. That's why I couldn't understand why it was a separate article. (And I'm using "NP" as a convenient abbreviation, not with any implication of trees or binding or whatever.) I think your approach unfairly marginalizes functionist linguistics, because it implies that formalist grammar is the norm against which functionalist ling is to be compared. The NP article should simply be about noun phrases, regardless of what you call them; if we need to, we can split off NP (functionalist) and NP (formalist), but the main article should not be biased toward formalism.
As for the English NP article, yeah, it should be merged. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
We could talk about this ENP/NP merger later. At the moment I'm just wiped out from RL work, and will be until at least the middle of next week. I'll return to answer your queries then. Tony (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How exactly did you conceive a merger? It wouldn't be easy to do unless the theoretical and educational context in which nominal groups (and worse, verb groups and phrases in SFL, which are very different notions from their namesakes in formal grammars) is explained. Tony (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep insisting that general grammar articles should focus on formalist grammar? "Noun phrase" should be about noun phrases, period, not about noun phrases in the Chomskyan or any other tradition. Since you appear to be a functionalist, I find it puzzling that you keep trying to push formalism and marginalize functionalism. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Where did I insist that "general grammar articles should focus on formalist grammar"? I don't get the gist of your post. Chomsky was not a linguist, either, so why is there continual mention of him? Where do I keep "trying to push formalism and marginalize functionalism"? All I asked was for how you conceive a merger ... my head has been bitten off for that? Tony (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I'd have to reread the articles, but your 'nominal group' article reads as a good 'noun phrase' article pretty much as it is, excepting some Halliday-specific terminology ('group', 'rank', 'epithet', etc.) and theory (the three metafunctions are AFAICT not about nominal groups specifically, there are innumerable other ideas on the motivations for ordering, etc.). — kwami (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
To take an example, where else is the grammatical difference between "epithet" and "classifier" explained, and what other terminology would be satisfactory (you can talk of the very fast train if fast is an epithet, but not if the fast train means the express (no-stops) train, where fast is a classifier). Do you propose a sandbox to work through the article? Tony (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest it be covered in the FSG article. It's too theory-specific to be in a general article. (Is there any grammatical difference between 'epithet' and 'classifier' in English, so that the introduction of the concept is actually useful? Note that the term 'classifier' normally means something completely different in linguistics.) As a parallel in the opposite direction, it would be like arguing whether determiners are really the head of the NP. — kwami (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, the distinction is an important one for the grammar, whichever theory or set of theories one is drawing on. The problem with formal grammars (as far as I know) is that they don't make this distinction (you can have a very big dog, but not a very house dog, yet both are traditionally regarded simply as "adjectives" ... and when it comes to hunting dog, I've seen people grapple with "hunting" as though it's a verb); if they do and you have a source at hand, it would be useful for me to know—is the distinction to be expressed through terms? The business of rankshifting ... this was a revelation when I read it in SFG, but perhaps it does exist in formal grammars; if so, I was never taught it at school, which is a pity, because it suddenly made grammar easier for me. Rankshifting is critical to understanding NGs/NPs, don't you think? And to explain rankshifting, the example in which there's an epithet/classifier/adjective is useful; yes, one could explain such word classes in the article on SFG, but there would be two problems in doing so: first, word classes in the traditional sense are of marginal importance in SFG (I would go so far as to say they are marginal to grammar—unless you're learning a foreign language—and can obscure the real function of words because the boundaries typically create distortions). The NG is just a good place to bring them up in SFG (and in a merged article, probably), because of the rankshifting phenomenon. Tony (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"House" is a noun, and "big" is an adjective, and the example you give is a pretty good test to distinguish them. While parts of speech are not absolute, that's a pretty fundamental distinction. (Ah, edit conflict: Yes, both are traditionally called "adjectives" – if you go back to the 19th century. But there's a difference between "adjective" as a function (better to be clear by using the word "attributive", since adjectives can also be predicative) and adjective as a part of speech. If you go by parts of speech, there's no confusion.) Certainly those words, which everyone's learned in school, are a hell of a lot easier than learning new ones. (ec: Well, okay, "attributive" will be new to a lot of people, or forgotten from school, but at least we're augmenting terms rather than replacing them.)
Rank-shifting would appear to be simple embeddedness, which is formal grammar, isn't it? Isn't that the whole deal about NPs vs DPs? I remember this from sentence diagramming in school. Sure, it can be included, we should just use the various names it goes by. — kwami (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I think distinctions at a deeper level will need to be made between the premodifiers and the qualifier that comes after the head. What is a DP? ""House" is a noun"—how can it be a noun when it's describing what kind of dog? This is why people find straight word-classes very confusing: they are cast-iron inflexible and pay no heed of the function of a word. What kind of dog? A house dog or a "big" dog—or a "house-trained" dog. A word that is sometimes a noun can morph into a word that classifies/describes another noun. And a "house-trained" dog has been house-trained, because I house-trained it; so a verb has morphed into a so-called adjective. Strict word classes can only work beyond simple, idealised wordings when an elaborate super-structure is built on top of them to explain these functions. Why not define them in terms of function in the start, to avoid the jostling of two systems. Then "house" can be classified a number of ways according to its function, not according to a fixed, home slot from which it then needs to deviate. I note that house dog is not hyphenated or joined into a single word. Perhaps this distinction is rather unstable in modern English, which might underlie the trouble we have with hyphenation. Tony (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) PS Any chance you could prune the talk-page list. It's becoming hard to navigate. The auto-archiving can work well nowadays. Tony (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember if our article on 'adjective' is any good, but that might help explain things. "A word that is sometimes a noun" – no, house /ˈhaʊs/ is always a noun. (Though house /ˈhaʊz/ is a verb.) In English, nouns can be used attributively. That's one of the functions of a noun; it doesn't turn it into an adjective. (Though, granted, there are words whose part of speech is difficult to pin down. But you're going to have the same kinds of problems with 'epithet' or any other category you care to invent. Language is not a formal system.) All we need to do is to make sure we use words precisely. We don't need a whole slew of new words which already have other meanings for our readers to learn. That's jargon without a purpose. — kwami (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
We'll just have to disagree that "house" is always a noun. The seeds of your doubt on that matter are already in your previous post, anyway. Why am I getting a faint feeling that you are about to insist on your favourite terminology over all others? Tony (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Who in the world says "house" is anything but a noun? There was no doubt there; there are homographs /haus/ (n) and /hauz/ (v) that I thought I should mention in case you brought them up. I mean, there are cases where part of speech is not clear, but this isn't one of them. Certainly in your example it's being used as a noun, and your opinion is that we should be classifying words according to how they are used. "My" favorite terminology is that of basics linguistics. Maybe there are schools of linguistics out there that do not have the concept of noun and verb, but I've never come across them. (Not for English, anyway.)
In English, a (count) noun is a word class that takes nominal morphology (plural/genitive), can function as the argument of a clause, can form the head of a noun phrase (determiners & modifiers), and can take a preposition. In English, nouns can modify other nouns without derivation. An adjective is very different: they do not take nominal (nor verbal) morphology, cannot function as the argument of a clause, nor be a clause, cannot form the head of a noun phrase or take prepositions, but inflect with comparative morphology. That is, the functions of these two word classes, broadly construed, is very different. That's the whole idea of a word class.
Different theories are going to define "noun" differently, sure, but we should cover that under "noun", and not have a dozen different articles for "noun" as defined in a dozen different theories. — kwami (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "In English, nouns can modify other nouns without derivation."—Well, that sounds like a rule fabricated to justify slotting words into categories irrespective of their function. A plethora of rather elaborate rules then have to be invented to justify this cast-iron dictionary-type categorisation. This turns people off grammar, and I believe it doesn't help people to write well. Tony (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's an observation. It was not invented by me, it's a notable feature of English grammar that's been noted for decades, probably centuries. It's one of the things that makes English grammar alien to, say, a Spanish speaker, because nouns don't have this function in Spanish.
The point of word classes is not to create ephemeral labels for whichever role a word happens to be playing at the moment, but rather to classify the word against other words which behave differently. There are words that share functions, and these we put in classes. "Noun" is one of the results, "verb" is another, "adjective" yet another, etc. These are all quite robust in English, even if not 100%. (Participles are problematic, as you've noted, and are sometimes considered a separate part of speech, though nearly all are derived. "Adverb" isn't a robust category; it tends to be a leftover category, but that's another topic.)
Please, go read something among the functionalist lit other than Halliday, which is apparently the only thing you've been exposed to, and then come back to discuss this. — kwami (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Was that an intentionally rude brush-off, or inadvertent? "even if not 100%"—well, there you have it: much less than 100%, actually, and trying to slot words into home categories as your starting point, rather than functions words can have is the big problem. After the idealised "John kicked the ball", trouble emerges and ever more elaborate "rules" and "slots" have to be invented to cope with grammar in the real world.

"There are words that share functions, and these we put in classes." It's all like a dictionary, isn't it: the starting-point is always a lexical definition of meaning, and function is all too easily slotted into one of a small number of categories that then have to be "stretched". No wonder it doesn't help native speakers to understand their language or to write well. travelling salesman ... so "travelling" is a verb, I suppose; but here, it is a classifier (not a help-desk salesman). By trying to pin down lexical items into idealised slots, people then pass up anything more than a simple set of clauses as just too difficult. And "resulting" doesn't classify here, but describes a noun: the resulting confusion (= the confusion that results). To throw back your parting advice, "Please, go read something other than word-slot theory, which is apparently the only thing you've been exposed to, and then come back to discuss this." Tony (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't come here, you have. It's painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. Again, please come back when you do. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It's painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. Please respond when you do, politely. Tony (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Morley (2000) Syntax in functional grammar is a SFG text that treats the two as synonyms. Morley comments that many systemicists prefer the term 'group' to 'phrase', and even that Halliday distinguished between the two, but he sees no reason to follow suite. (The distinction is only maintained because Halliday argued that only PPs are 'phrases', but that distinction does not hold up to scrutiny.) Even within SFG, the terms are not stable, and NP may be used for NG. Outside that school others have used the two terms to illustrate some distinction or other, but not necessarily the one Halliday had in mind. For example, one text (I forget where) says that English has noun phrases, while Latin had noun groups, which were insufficiently integrated to be considered 'phrases'. This is, then, an obscure and inconsistent distinction. — kwami (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Stony-iron meteorites[edit]

Hi! Are you sure an en dash is better than an hyphen in stony-iron meteorite? They are not meteorites both stony meteorite and iron meteorite, they are a third and separate class: "stony-iron". Per MOS:HYPHEN#Hyphens an hyphen seems more appropriate. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen dashes in the lit, as in McShween (1999) Meteorites and their parent planets,[27] I see the same thing in Geochemistry international 41.9 (2003).[28] "Stony iron" isn't a single material, which is what a hyphen would suggest. Rather, it's a hybrid of stone and iron, as independent constituents, which is what the dash indicates. Of course, most sources use hyphens (or even spaces, as New Scientist[29]), either because they don't bother, or because they follow style guides which do not advocate dashes for such things.
I just found McBride (2004) An introduction to the solar system, which uses dashes for both the meteorite–asteroid connection and stony–iron meteorites.[30] I agree there isn't any need for disambiguation here, it's just a matter of consistency / MOS. Some of the sources I've found which use hyphens describe these meteorites as being made of "stony iron", as if that were a single material, rather than as a hybrid of stony meteorite and iron meteorite, but others make it clear than this is not a single material and that they are a hybrid. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just checking your self-revert[edit]

Hi, this edit of yours looked right to me. Did you mean to revert it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It's a quotation. I think that's one where I missed the 'skip' button and hit 'save' by mistake, but in any case it was wrong. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

IPA stress markers[edit]

Hi. I've been machine-gunning articles on Romanian topics with IPA transcriptions, and I came across a problem regarding the use of stress markers. In Romanian place names composed of two or more words --- such as Târgu Jiu and Porțile de Fier --- the focus is on the last word in the name, whose stress is in fact the stress of the whole group. Now everything is fine if that last word has more than one syllable, because then the stress marker is needed anyway. But when the last word is monosyllabic (like in the two examples I gave), I'm in a conflict of interests, so to speak: I shouldn't mark the stress because it's just one syllable, but I should mark it, because it's the most important stress in the group, and not marking it might suggest that the group stress is elsewhere.

What should I do? Is there a specific solution you know from phonetic works? I don't remember having seen anything like this anywhere.

A possible compromise solution would be to consider the whole group as a single word (phonetically) and mark the final stress as primary and the others as secondary. I don't think this is very orthodox though, especially since we should leave spaces between words in the phonetic transcriptions (for easier identification and reading), which then gives the false impression that some words only have a secondary stress.

A similar problem occurs in people's names, although in that case the two or more parts are more independent from each other and there is no particular group stress, at least not in Romanian. Even so, not marking the stress in monosyllabic parts of the name risks suggesting that those parts don't have a stress, or somehow have less weight than the polysyllabic parts. (Both in toponyms and anthroponyms, sometimes genuinely unstressed particles do occur, such as prepositions.)

Any thoughts? Thanks. — AdiJapan 11:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You have just discovered why I always mark stress in monosyllables, even when people gripe about it. I've written a regex script that runs through all the IPA-en transclusions and picks out any unstressed words for review. Since the difference between primary and 2ary stress (at least in English) is phrasal vs lexical, I don't see any problem with marking a word with only 2ary stress when it's given in a phrase. See Jazze Pha. (You could also mark two 1ary stresses if you liked, since there is no significant difference, but if you're going to follow the convention of 2ary stress, it would be more consistent to use it here as well.) — kwami (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Very prompt answer! Yes, the solution you chose for Târgu Jiu is exactly the one I was favoring most. Thanks! — AdiJapan 11:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is why I'd mark stress on Jiu even if it occurred alone. When people get used to seeing monosyllables without stress, they think it's some kind of rule (I've even been told it's a rule by people "correcting" me), and can get rather confused when they see phrases like this. Best IMO to be consistent and always mark stress, even when it seems redundant. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Injunction on article title disputes secondary to hyphen/endash issue[edit]

Just a quick note to alert you to this Injunction, recently passed by the Arbitration Committee. --Noren (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Love (Kelly Chen album) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Love (Kelly Chen album) 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/Love (Kelly Chen album) 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 good 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. --Gh87 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian language[edit]

Read the goddamn source before continuing your rampage. You're an administrator, for Christ's sake! -- (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not providing a source. You're edit warring to insert a propagandistic POV that has no place in an encyclopedia. Prove your point, and people won't oppose your edits. — kwami (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You called my edits "unsourced bullshit". Read the source. Where does it speak of an artificial separation? -- (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And what have I ever said that was in any way connected to nationalism? You were attempting to introduce "Macedonian is/was Bulgarian". I can't believe I even have to argue this to someone such as yourself. -- (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, that was the case. Perhaps I've been misinformed. But it's up to you to prove your claims. Mac certainly isn't "central" SS along with SC.
From ELL2, it would seem that Bulgarian was a pluricentric language, and that the intelligentsia of 19th-century Skopje called their language "Bulgarian". It was when the eastern dialect was made the sole standard that proponents of the western dialect began their campaign to establish a separate language, which we now know as Macedonian. — kwami (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Bulgarian was not a pluricentric language because there has only ever been one Standard Bulgarian. The Macedonian intelligentsia was excluded from this movement and that lead to two things: a faction which called for the creation of a Macedonian standard (but which mostly continued to write in local dialects with improvised orthographies) and a faction which called for a united standard with equal influence from both sides of the dialectal border. Politically, both factions were mixed. -- (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly what I've found, but certainly something we can work out with discussion. What I object to is artificially separating the languages in order to obscure how close they are. — kwami (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's definitely not my intention. I think it was me who actually added the passage about the continuum. -- (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, with all of the anonymous IP addresses, I don't know who I'm talking to or who's saying what. — kwami (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

When Friedman says "de facto practice", he means that the language policy and main norms were already semi-officially agreed upon. The only noticeable changes after WWII were the adoption of the alphabet and constitutional status. The only obstacle to those final acts was the Bulgarian occupation. If it really interests you, the more intricate details involve the use of -уе over today's prescription -ува and a handful of other trivial things. Texts published by the partisans (the broadcasts themselves were edited by Koneski) are, apart from those minor differences I just mentioned, identical to the appearance of the standard today. Much poetry from the interwar period is also identical, but only differs in the use of a few dialectisms as can be expected of poetry. -- (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured it would be pretty close to the 19th-century literary standard. — kwami (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

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) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

please undelete template Llang[edit]

Hello, Kwami. I understand that you have some concerns about server load with the template I created, and I'm certainly willing to discuss this with you and others, but simply deleting it right away, out of process and BEFORE the discussion happens, is quite obnoxious. I already used it on some pages, and those pages have now been broken. Please undelete it now, and if you want to propose that it be deleted, use the AFD process. Thanks. Benwing (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked: You only used it on one page in mainspace, and that's easy enough to fix. I didn't want to encourage others to use it, because it was quite a mess, and a lot of wasted effort, the last time we deleted it. But I'll restore it for now. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
AfD discussion here. — kwami (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Once you've deleted it, there's no way for me to even check where I used it very easily. In this case I also used it in a number of other pages that I was in the middle of editing and I didn't remember what I had saved and hadn't. Benwing (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It didn't work to go to the red link and click 'what links here'? — kwami (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

place of articulation[edit]

Hi Kwami. I really don't want to get in an edit war with you, but I would hope that you would be more constructive than simply continuing to hit "revert". You did the same thing to me once or twice before awhile ago. I would have hoped that you had learned to moderate this behavior by now, but evidently not. The solution for "I don't like something" is not just to revert it, but to propose a different solution. I'm certainly not wedded to the solution I came up with. Benwing (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what the discussion page is for. Please read WP:BOLD. I found your edits problematic for a number of reasons, but didn't have time to go over them in detail. — kwami (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, wait a second. What did I revert of yours? I've got two rewrites to review, but I didn't revert them. — kwami (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the template. Templates are transcluded on multiple pages, and you shouldn't edit war over proposed changes. Yes, it needs to be fixed, but your "fix" actually makes it worse. — kwami (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Place and manner templates[edit]

I responded to you under {{Place of articulation}}.

As for {{Manner of articulation}}, sure, not all laterals are sonorants, but most are. Not are trills are sonorants either. Not all nasals are sonorants either, for that matter, as there are nasalized fricatives as well as true nasal fricatives ("nareal fricatives"). Nor are all sibilants fricatives. Nor for that matter are all retroflex consonants postalveolar. Either we need to lie consistently or we need to be technically correct, but either way we shouldn't be inconsistently lying some of the time and not lying the rest of the time.

Technically speaking we have the following:

  • Places of articulation
    • Active places of articulation (laminal closed, laminal non-closed, apical, dorsal, etc.)
    • Passive places of articulation (dental, alveolar, palatal, etc.)
  • Manners or places???
    • Tongue shape: Grooved; Convex Domed (aka "Palato-Alveolar"); Convex V-Shaped (aka "Alveolo-Palatal"); Flat or Concave (aka "Retroflex")
    • Secondary articulations: Palatalization, labialization, etc.
  • Manners of articulation
    • Stricture (Stop, fricative, affricate, approximant, trill, tap/flap)
    • Sibilance
    • Nasality
    • Laterality
    • Phonation
    • Airstream mechanism

See the rewrite I did of place of articulation, with a separation of active and passive.

Also see the new article articulation (phonetics) that I wrote, which is written as a non-technical introduction to the whole concept. We should probably extend that article or write a more technical equivalent that discusses all of the possible articulatory parameters. The problem is that the distinction of "place" vs. "manner" is vague and doesn't apply to all parameters.

I would suggest in the templates that we not lie at all; otherwise it will just make it more confusing for someone really trying to understand the possible distinctions. That implies we keep things fairly flat. Perhaps we should just have a single "Articulation" template? That would kind of long but would at least avoid the problem of where to put things.

Benwing (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of your examples make sense, but templates generally are a simplified outline, a guide, not an article in themselves. For example, does any language in the world make use of nareal fricatives? If not, I don't see the point of adding complexity to the template. Trilled fricatives do occur, so perhaps we should remove them from sonorant as well. — kwami (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I removed apical etc. from under alveolar and put them in a section on tongue shape along with lateral & sulcal. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


This edit makes 150,000. (Okay, I'm fudging the numbers. 150,005. I missed the count.) — kwami (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination for English conjugation tables[edit]

Since you have edited the article or its talk page, I'd like to let you know that the article English conjugation tables has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English conjugation tables. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


It was agreed that you would not make these changes... [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to stay off the pages he was working on. He hasn't worked on them for a month. And I was merely cleaning up, making the articles consistent. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That was all cancer pages you agreed to stay off. You are not living up to what you agreed too. I shall revert you changes per this users request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


I was under the impression that ligatures were deprecated for affricates in the IPA. Do you have information that contradicts this? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

They are. But several of the articles had only the ligs, so I thought they should have both. Also, it can be hard to see the difference if they're not magnified. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you check …[edit]

Could you check the IPA for each of the following articles:

It's my understanding that we should give the English pronunciation for names that are so thoroughly anglicized, though of course the Latin could also be given too and identified as such. I have no expertise with the symbols. If you could spare a few moments it would be much appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No wonder you couldn't figure it out. It's gibberish: not English, not Latin, not even Latin in an English accent.
There's never a problem giving the foreign pronunciation of a name, though the English generally comes first and we need to always mark the foreign pronunciation as such. (We sometimes forgo English pronunciations when a name is obvious, but Proserpina isn't obvious.) — kwami (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to stop by and say thanks for taking time to look. Yes, that's how I understood that this should be done. Thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kwami[edit]

I feel very bad having to post you again. I feel even worse having to impose on Doc James to talk to you, because I have had trouble being civil. As I recall, you promised Administrator User:Georgewilliamherbert you would stay away from all - repeat all - cancer articles.

I do not want to get this mess all started again. I am respectfully requesting that you give me your word, as a gentleman, once again, that you will never again hyphenate, or "dashinate", cancer articles. Do I have your word of honor?

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cliff, you said you wanted me to keep off the articles because you were working on them, and I was disrupting your work. "Leave it till last", you said. So I kept off. But you haven't worked on that article for a month now. Really, this is extremely childish of you. I'm not going to argue with Doc James over reverting me, but you don't own cancer. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Kwami the whole WP:MED project has asked you to lay off. We where at WP:ANI. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Best just to drop it. There are many other places where you can work. You do NOT have consensus for the changes you continue to make.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, I have dropped it. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kwami. I really do appreciate it, and I say again ... I deeply regret the whole thing. It soured me greatly on Wikipedia, and was directly responsible for my near-complete lack of production in recent weeks. And it has caused me to irritate EXTREMELY nice people like Doc James, which I regret even more. I wish you no ill will whatsoever, and say again that I stand in awe of your remarkable contributions to Wikipedia in the area of language and linguistics. In fact, I have spoken of you in real life to several friends - with regard to your breadth and depth of knowledge in those areas.
Again, I extend my hand in friendship, and thank you very, VERY much for reconsidering.
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, Cliff. I had only gone back because I thought you were no longer active on the article. I've dropped it, and it's not even on my watch list. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why merged?[edit]

Herllo, Kwamikagami. Your merge of Southern Tutchone language and Northern Tutchone language is true?! Because, their people articles, Southern Tutchone people and Northern Tutchone people separate articles. --Kmoksy (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those (on the people) are still separate articles. Mithun however considers the language to be one, and there really isn't enough information to justify separate articles when one was little more than a copy of the other. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

real life intervenes[edit]

Hey Kwami, sorry to not respond earlier, real life has been intervening in a big way. Source for grooved alveolar sibilants is Ladefoged and Maddieson, "The Sounds of the World's Languages". If there's a better way of describing this class of sounds we can certainly use it.

I'm about to go away for the weekend; I'll respond again Monday night. Benwing (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tambora language[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Tambora language at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

alveolar retroflex sibilants[edit]

As for your changes to "Voiceless alveolar retroflex fricative", you and Aeusoes1 are misunderstanding both what I wrote and what the literature says. The Spanish "apico-alveolar fricative" is NOT the same as the apical alveolar fricative described by Ladefoged and Maddieson in SOWL. I tried to make that very clear in the descriptions of the sound, and I even wrote a paragraph stating precisely why I use the term "retroflex". You deleted that paragraph, and then once the paragraph was missing, both you and Aeusoes started on about "how is this sound different from the apical alveolar /s/ of SOWL?" even though the paragraph said what was different.

In plain terms, the Spanish sound is a hushing-type sound made with a concave (retroflex) tongue shape. It sounds nothing like English /s/ but something like Chinese or Polish "retroflex s". Read the quote from Obaid that I added, where this is described as a "soft /ʃ/". It cannot possibly be the same as the apical variant of English /s/, which evidently sounds practically the same as any other English /s/ (otherwise there wouldn't be so much confusion in the literature about what the varying tongue positions of the sound are). You accused me of WP:OR in creating this page and writing what I did, but the literature is very clear. I can quote more literature if you want. This is why I do not want to use "apico-alveolar sibilant" or similar variant -- it encourages even knowledgeable people like you and Aeusoes to get confused about what this sound actually is.

I do not have time right now but tomorrow I'm going to rename "apico-alveolar sibilant" back to "alveolar retroflex sibilant", and write to Prof. Maddieson and others to ask for clarification as to what's actually going on. Please have some forbearance in the meantime and don't just blast it back to the unhelpful "apico-alveolar sibilant" until we actually figure out what's going on properly. Thanks.

Also, as for your changing the symbol to use an apical diacritic, this isn't helpful for precisely the same reason that "apico-alveolar sibilant" isn't helpful, and I'm pretty sure the usage of a retracted diacritic is more common in the literature.

As for "grooved", p. 180 of SOWL suggests a "tongue shape" feature with values "grooved, flat, domed, palatalized"; combined with the rest of what the chapter says, this strongly suggests that "grooved" is intended to be the feature that distinguishes hissing sibilants from hushing sibilants. If Spanish "apico-alveolar" sibilants are truly alveolar, and English /s/ can truly be apical, then clearly another feature is needed to distinguish the two, and it appears to be tongue shape ("flat"/"retroflex" vs. "grooved"). However, I'll see what Maddieson says about this too. BTW you can also make two different kinds of non-sibilant alveolar fricatives, a th-type and an r-type. Ladefoged/Maddieson would use the feature "Rhotic" to distinguish the r-type.

Benwing (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you make an unsupported or badly supported change, and then accuse others of OR when they revert you. That's not how things work.
I understand that the Castillian /s/ sounds different from the English /s/. It is apical and alveolar though, so those parameters are correct. As to what distinguishes it, I'd welcome any clarification you can provide, esp. from Dr Maddieson, but I seriously doubt "retroflex" is it, since it isn't retroflex per the conventional use of that word. (They even say the laminal retroflex sibilants aren't retroflex.) If we're just going to make up new meanings for words like "retroflex", why not just say it's "aereal" or "pedal" or something? "Grooved" evidently isn't it either, since it may be that all sibilants are grooved. Perhaps it's more grooved than English /s/, but that would require a ref.
Anyway, if you can provide a description of what the actual difference is, I'm sure we would all appreciate it. — kwami (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Velar approximant[edit]

I had corrected the wrong information. Velar approximant occurs between back vowels, not front. Therefore, the example is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amateur55 (talkcontribs) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right. (It's been a long time, so I'm checking, but that's what I remember.) But it's generally a good idea to say something to that effect in your edit summary, so others will know where you're coming from. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it an allophone of /ɡ/, though? And I've seen claims that it really isn't a consonant at all, at least not in normal speech, but just vowel lengthening. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)