Hello Nlu, according to the summary of the picture to the right, you did the translation for the inscriptions, so I guess you may be the right person to ask:
- Do they form a duilian? It seems to not follow the prescribed tone pattern.
- The sequence is rendered with the left row first; should that not be the other way, given that traditionally right is read first?
Thanks, — Sebastian 18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @SebastianHelm: They aren't "duilian" in the sense of the strict pattern, but loosely, they can be considered a "duilian"; I think whoever wrote them was more interested in the "good luck" aspects of the words rather than literary, so didn't go as far as making sure that the wording is analogous. As far as which one should be read first - I don't think it matters; they are matching columns that clearly don't have one flowing into the other. --Nlu (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I'm surprised you write the sequence doesn't matter; to me it seems that "國寶" is a further extension of "財源廣". That said, as I'm writing this, I realize that the word classes also don't match, so it's clearly as you say that the writer was not that interested in the literary aspect. — Sebastian 19:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @SebastianHelm: Well, I meant that in the captions, I don't think our readers necessarily needs to read one column before the other. (By the way, while the image is not at great resolution for my eyes, I am reading the left column as "國寶盈庫" and the right column as "財源廣進.") --Nlu (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe there's a misunderstanding. We both recognize the same characters; maybe I confused you by only mentioning some of them? Of course, anybody can read anything on Wikipedia in the order they jolly well please, but I don't see why we shouldn't guide our readers towards the order it was intended to be read in. Especially as it's easy to do by just adding "(right)" and "(left)" in the text. But as we both agree, it's not a literary text, so it's not worth quibbling over. — Sebastian 19:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Need to merge articles
There are two different articles of the same person, Hasan Mahsum and Hassan Maksum which need to be merged. This will be non controversial and does not require a vote- there isn't any way anyone can dispute that they are not the same person.Rajmaan (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Rajmaan: You actually don't need administrative intervention for this kind of a merge. You would only need to 1) consider which one is the more appropriate name; 2) merge the content from the other article into it; and 3) redirect the secondary name to the primary name. --Nlu (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.
Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.
While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.
Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.
This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The ip is up to his BS again. Providing absolutely no sources to back up his assertions, and attacking people as "PRC trolls". He is trying to push a false POV that southern Han are Baiyue descendants and have nothing to do with northern Han.
You are trying to push and maintain the false and implausible POV that all 1.1 billion people who comprise the Sinitic peoples are one, cohesive ethnic group, ignoring the millions who do not identify as such, not to mention the unintelligibility between Sinitic languages and the universal acceptance among non-PRC linguists that Cantonese, Hakka, Hoklo, Mandarin etc. are distinct languages, not "varieties" or "dialects". The article in its current form does not provide a neutral point of view, and attempts to degrade the widely accepted linguistic, cultural and genetic differences (specified somewhat in the article) between especially Yue peoples like the Cantonese and northern Sinitic groups like the Jin and Mandarin peoples. Hong Kong for example, still somewhat free from PRC oppression, has CANTONESE as its official language, not Mandarin and not some non-existant single "Chinese language".
The Yue Sinitic peoples like the Cantonese especially are descended primarily from the peoples of the Baiyue, and this is not only reflected in their highly distinctive culture and language, but also in their genetics (shown time and time again in study after study) and in their modern day identity, especially in places like Hong Kong and Macau where the PRC censorship and propaganda machine as somewhat less clout. This does not mean there is no ancestry from migrants from northern China, merely that it was small and limited compared to their indigenous Baiyue descent, which allowed the Cantonese, isolated in southern China and via their native Baiyue cultural substratum, to form a distinct people and language from that of Mandarin and other Sinitic peoples. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your claims have been shot down in flames- Talk:Han_Chinese#Ip_vandal.Rajmaan (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am not ready to say anything yet - I'm at the start of what promises to be a very long day at work - but I'll look at it later. I may not be able to sort it out well, though, even then, because it's not exactly my area of expertise. But I will see... --Nlu (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)