User talk:Uanfala/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Native speakers

In page sindhi language Native peakers There are about 50 million Sindhis in Sindh province of Pakistan and about 2.5 million in India. And you write 25 million edite it an curection Skr sahar (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What you did there wasn't a good idea: you changed a sourced figure to state something very different from what was given in the source. If you would like to update it, please also provide a different source, see Help:Introduction to referencing. But in this case it's worth bearing in mind that the total population of Sindh might be clsoe to 50 million, but less than two thirds of that are speakers of Sindhi. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In page Districts of Pakistan

This file is a modified version of another file on commons with the addition of the subdivisions of the Indian part of Kashmir. This current version is sourced to an external website, whose image licences are unclear, so it's probably not completely safe to be hosting their contet here (even though that is ultimately derived from something already hosted here: the additions are not trivial so can be subject to copyright). Also, the file isn't worth keeping as it's not usable anywhere on wikipedia: it's factually wrong in showing the Indian parts of Kashmir as though they were administered by Pakistan. I understand what you mean. However, Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan and that is why I upload this picture on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Nottingham (talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is a map of the administrative subdivisions of Pakistan. If it includes areas that are not within Pakistan (even though many people would want them to be), then the map is inaccurate. But I don't think there's any point discussin this here, but you're more than welcome to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Districts of Pakistan.jpg. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Maram language (Austro-Asiatic)

Unfortunately, the current target was around before the RfD closed, and one user even mentioned it. If the new target is a good one, the redirect really needs to go back to RfD instead of having multiple users decide to recreate it.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 05:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, this is getting ever more ridiculous. Amorymeltzer, any chance you might be able to reconsider your close of the RfD? I guess you might have missed Kwami's creation of an article about an Austroasiatic language called "Maram"? – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
And Fabrictramp, could you please consider not breaking links from dab pages and hatnotes when deleting redirects? – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
And I'm also not sure why you decided to EC-protect it. This is not going to affect either of the two users who've created it so far. And it's not that there's a swarm of newbie editors (or anyone else for that matter) who's remotely likely to decide to do anything about this extremely obscure redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've created Maram language (Austroasiatic) to plug up the holes left behind (and yes, I'm aware that this is onlt technically a different redirect). I don't think I'd worry about the deleted one: as it uses a less common hyphenation variant in the disambiguator, though of course, that redirect has a long-ish history and it would be nice if it were undeleted. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. If you don't mind the old title being deleted, I can restore the history and move it sans redirect to the non-hyphenated title; it does seem to me that some of the opposition at the RfD did stem from the less-than-ideal disambiguator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That will be great, thank you! (Just a side note that I don't think there was anything wrong with the form Austro-Asiatic: it's less commonly used but perfectly correct; it's just that there's no need to account, in my opinion, for all spelling variants within disambiguators). – Uanfala (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) What a fascinating situation. So we have a redirect, Maram language (Austro-Asiatic), that was nominated at RfD because there wasn't a suitable target. A few others agreed there was not a suitable target, until kwami came by and created the suitable target. Now that there is a suitable target, I don't think any of the "delete" comments are relevant unless they clarify that they also disagree with retargeting to Maharam language and explaining why. From my read, I don't see any opposition stemming specifically from the hyphenated disambiguator. Amorymeltzer, could you relist the discussion and we could then ping all participants to see whether or not they are okay with retargeting to Maharam language? That should give a better consensus then the current mess we have. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I find the situation fascinating too. Notice it's started even before the RfD? I think this mess is largely the result of the interaction between editors taking actions out of common sense but with disregard of proper process on the one hand, with editors punctiliously following policy but in disregard to common sense on the other. – Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • What was started before the RfD? That was a well-put summary. When common sense and proper process disagree, it is a good time to invoke WP:IAR. I thought recreating that redirect was a good invocation, but it appears not everyone agrees. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
        • It's the series of edits to the redirect just before the RfD nomination [1], as well as this thread. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Sorry, was away for a few days! Is action on this still desired? I got the impression from the above that the current title is a good compromise? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
            • @Amorymeltzer: I am not comfortable with a redirect from a valid variant spelling being salted on grounds that three people !voted delete before the proper target article was established. Could you please relist? -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
              @Tavix: Sure thing, but if we're talking about Maram language (Austro-Asiatic) wouldn't DRV be a better locale? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
              @Amorymeltzer: I'd rather avoid an unnecessary step in case the outcome of DRV is to relist. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
              Fair point! Doing now, expect some pings! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Count d'Orgel's Ball

I hope you don't think I'm stalking your RM nominations! I didn't notice it happened to be yours, but I translated the French article about the book. I'd like to add the film The Ball of Count Orgel to the nomination proper, but I'm not sure how to do that. I've added a hatnote at the page.

Best wishes 94.21.204.175 (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting there, things should be a bit clearer now. I've added the film to the RM nomination (and I hope I haven't broken anything). – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I would also have translated the film article ,but there is nothing there that the English hasn't already. Pip pip, 94.21.204.175 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

hinduism tonga

look at the given source and correct the numbers Jishnusavith (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The same figures are also quoted in Religion in Tonga. I wasn't quite able to find either of two competeing sets of figures in the cited source (but I didn't look very diligently, I have to admit). Maybe a link to the exact webpage containing the source could be of help? – Uanfala (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

This morning you made feedback at redirects-for-creation where you advocate for maintaining red-links because it encourages article creation, but in reality it may do the opposite. Red links can only result in article-creation by editors who are autoconfirmed and such editors are declining by the day. OTOH blue links are more applicable for people who visit rdf-noticeboard since those users are only able to create articles from redirects. In a nutshell I think you have things backwards. I know you consider yourself an inclusionist, but since I was planning to create them, you've unintentionally put yourself into the deletionist camp. 92.2.79.3 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you're planning to create these articles? If you intention is to do that in the next couple of months then I'll create the redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Yes, I am planning to create those articles soon. But the category that was declined will probably need to be made as well in order to highlight their scope. 92.2.79.3 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've created the following redirects:

As for the rest, an (admittedly very quick) web search seemed to reveal too few meaningful results, and the people don't appear to be mentioned in the source you provided in the AFC/R request. If you start these as drafts, I'd be happy to move them to the mainspace. Here's a list:

Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The main reason there's few web results is because there are so many transliterations. I admit Cananug lacks sources, but "Agalule" is also spelled "caga lule" who is also called "haybe", whilst "gacmayare" is also spelled "gacma yare" and both are pretty notable with the former having several debates with the president Galaydh, and the latter being a major figure of the former SSC. Cheers! 92.2.79.3 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits to WP:NPP/R

Hi. I've noticed you've done a series of edits to WP:NPP/R. Given that you do not currently hold this PERM, I would suggest that venturing beyond style/clarity edits should be left to those with more NPP experience. For example your first edit struck me as helpful and a real improvement, while this edit changes longstanding NPP practice. This page serves as instructions to new and existing reviewers and generally changes to our procedures are discussed on the talk page before being changed. Hope that all makes sense. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I had just brought up at the talk page the issue of this hotchpotch at the end: I think it needs more attention than the minor fiddle that I attempted to do. As for the navigation section, yes, that's something new, but I'm surprised this is considered controversial. Now that you've removed it, I've brought that up for discussion as well. And yes, I haven't been touched by the divine grace of this PERM, that's probably I was foolish enough to think that anyone is free to make suggestions there. But thanks for the notice, I'll tread more carefully on this sacred ground. – Uanfala (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I just regretted being sarcastic just above. But you know, this is an open project, and this openness is the reason why most of out best contributors are here. Take an iota of that away – by suggesting that contributions shouldn't stand on their own merits, but be tied to the presumed wiki-qualifications of the contributor – and you're taking away a lot of that openness. But I guess I'm not that committed to the whole idea either, otherwise I wouldn't have registered an account in the first place, would I? – Uanfala (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Uanfala of course Wikipedia is a project anyone can contribute to. It's why I took care to try and keep your content neutral changes (e.g. inclusion of MOS:BOLDLEAD). However, I don't think it goes against any encyclopedic tenet to suggest that those with experience working in an area would be better positioned to write instructions to new editors (and codify instructions for experienced editors to look at). As WP:BOLD says, discussion in these kind of areas is often better. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I often catch myself thinking just like that, so I do see your point. But have you come across Graham's hierarchy of disagreement? – Uanfala (talk)

What's the story with Template:Cite hearsay?

A group of us are working through a list of templates with no transclusions, and Template:Cite hearsay came up on the list. It is unclear what it is used for. Is it OK with you if we nominate it for deletion? You are welcome to do so yourself, or to turn it into something useful. Thanks for any insight you can provide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's obviously a joke, but I can't quite recall the circumstances that led to it. I think I might as well have it deleted or take it out of the template namespace if I don't come up with a way to elaborate on it. So, you're working through a list of templates with no transclusions? There are over 80,000 of them, so that's quite a task. – Uanfala (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
See this editor's talk page for the discussion. So far, we have the list of low-hanging fruit narrowed down to 28,000 templates, of which about 17,000 are in four large batches of related templates that should be easy to figure out. There are other batches of hundreds of templates that should either be kept (and removed from the report) or deleted or marked as subst-only. Once we get those large batches off the list, I expect we'll be down to 5,000 or so that we'll need to pick through. That's much more manageable than 80,000. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite hearsay

Template:Cite hearsay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It was very nice of you to ask me just above, but what point was there in it when you ignored what I said? – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I nominated it after you responded: I might as well have it deleted. Clearly I misinterpreted your response. I apologize. You were welcome to dispute the nomination or request a different outcome; it's a discussion, after all. It looks like you took care of it yourself, in any event. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


Missing dab page entries

Hi! I've been working from your page User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries 2018-11-26, and I was wondering if I should/may remove or strike through the ones I've taken care of. I just didn't want you, or anyone else, to waste time going through pages that have already been fixed. (I'll watch here, so no need to ping me.) --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How did you come across it? I'm surprised anyone is using that list. It was only a temporary dump; the main report is at https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/view/File_viewer#log:missing_entries-enwiki.log. It is maintained by Dispenser, and it's usually updated every day. You're probably better off working straight off that; its format is a bit different though – the links are not to the articles, but to the dabfix tool targeted at the corresponding dab page. This is definitely worth giving a try – it can find additional missing articles not listed in the report, and it can help pluck out descriptors from the articles. If you prefer the format of the list you've been using so far, then User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries latest should do the job: it's up to date (I've just generated it out of yesterday's report) and I can update it from time to time if it gets used. There's no need to strike anything off it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Your page was in the "What links here" of dab page I was cleaning up, and I thought "This looks like something useful to work on." So I just dug in. Thank you for the suggestions of the other list and tool. I'll look into it. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You

have been here for quite long enough to know that lodging SPIs against IPs is of no benefit; due to our prohibitions against linking an IP to user. ∯WBGconverse 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So you do suspect sockery then? CheckUser data can't be used to connect IPs to registered users, but in most SPIs you don't need to have recourse to CheckUser anyway: accounts and IPs can, and very often do, get blocked solely based on behavioural evidence. But if it's just about this, then it's not worth the bother: you can simply point out why the IPs is wrong, and there's probably no need for that either: their opinion is likely to be ignored anyway. Either way, you know you can't just remove other people's comments like that. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Hinduism in Africa

A tag has been placed on Template:Hinduism in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Template:Hinduism in Africa is not a hardcoded instance of Template:Africa topic: that latter template is a quick and dirty way to build navboxes, which doesn't work well in cases like this as it doesn't really navigate between the few articles we have on the topic, but has a profusion of entries for permanent redlinks and redirects to broader articles with the tiniest of mentions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Uanfala, FWIW {{Hinduism in Africa}} had zero uses until you just made those changes. They all worked fine. There was no reason for you to implement it the way you did... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No they didn't: three quarters of the entries in the previous template were almost useless, and certainly against basic navbox practice (like WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a better idea how this might work? – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hinduism in Africa

Template:Hinduism in Africa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Impetus and the Tunnel Experiment

Uanfala,

Wonderful article: hugely informative and well written.

I am not writing to critique except insofar as to point out newish developments pertaining to the tunnel experiment. Possibly they are beyond the scope of the already-written piece. Possibly also, they deserve their own Wikipedia entry.

Perhaps the most important advance on the subject is the upcoming book by Martin Beech, Going Underground -- which traces the history of the idea.

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/11236

The hard copy publication is due out in May or June of this year. Excerpts are already available. It seems the e-book version may also be available (I haven't checked).

A point that appears to be neglected in your article and Beech's work is that the tunnel experiment need not be left without direct empirical support, i.e., as a mere THOUGHT experiment.

The standard oscillation prediction has sometimes been PRESUMED to be true, so as to form the mechanical strategy of "gravitational clock" experiments designed to measure Newton's constant G. As in the 2016 paper by M. Feldman, et al:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02126

Earlier (1975) proposals to measure G with similar "tunnel-like" apparatus are found in a NASA paper by Larry Smalley:

https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19750014902

I have written to the authors of the Feldman, et al paper to urge performing a much simpler proof-of-concept experiment in a laboratory on Earth or in a near-Earth satellite. One of the co-authors, Virginia Trimble responded positively to my paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0341

I think it is important to realize that our LACK of empirical evidence to support the oscillation prediction also bears on Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity (GR). This is because the prediction is directly correlated with the GR prediction concerning the rates of clocks along the tunnel walls and at the center of the source mass. Specifically, the Schwarzschild Interior Solution to Einstein's equations has never been tested.

The last paper linked above provides details to understand this connection between Newton's and Einstein's theories. Most importantly, it emphasizes that certain key consequences of these theories are only PRESUMED to correspond to physical reality. In fact, they have not been tested. But THEY COULD BE TESTED, by turning the original thought experiment into a real experiment.

Cheers,

Richard Benish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC02:D7D0:802:FC8D:F9A9:F7C5 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from Dharug-language terms has been nominated for discussion

Category:Redirects from Dharug-language terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

why deleted my page

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

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

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

Lucy in the Sky (disambiguation)

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

Sorry, should have linked: that's partial title matches: entries for which the ambiguous term is part of the title, and hence not usually included in the body of a dab page (though sometimes eligible for the See Also section). – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks! Nardog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Stub tags

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

It's a bit dispiriting to see them so impervious to feedback. But they don't seem to be doing any more of these edits, so I don't think there's a need to escalate yet. If they start again, maybe I'd leave another reminder on their talk page, and if they still go on, I'd leave a big scary warning template message, and if that doesn't work, then ANI would be the place. – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. I don't really think I'd want to template a regular. They did revert one of my reversions but we have two matters at hand - how long is a stub, and where do the tags go, so there is some wiggle room. Let's hope it stops. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Plz include Husnani Baloch,

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

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

DYK for Maybrat language

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

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

Od is our Caste and oadki our language

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

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

Purgi

As per this[2] argument, shouldn't we remove the template of Pakistan too? ML 911 19:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Languages of Pakistan lacked a link only by omission. Template:Languages of India lacks one by design: it only links to the major languages. In other words, we can afford to have all Pakistani languages in a single navbox, but the Indian ones are just too many. A possible step forward would be the creation of navboxes at the state level – see, there is one for Tamil Nadu already. – Uanfala (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I see, I am looking forward to create templates for various regions. ML 911 20:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • On a different note, the language is spelt in the sources in very many ways. We should include all the spellings so that we can locate information here or in the sources. The spellings are also contested by the locals, when they come around here. Finally, there are also Purigs on the Tibetans side, who seem to use different spellings. It is quite complicated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • And on a yet another note, much of the content of Purgi language would be more appropriately placed in Purigpa. – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Endogeneity in multinomial response models

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dangerous

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

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

Automated Twinkle talk page notification

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

Sorry, I was a bit hasty in my revert. I'm not a Twinkle user, but I reckoned there ought to have been a box that you can untick so that this message doesn't get posted. Isn't there? – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I think so, but there's no harm with the notification stating either way. (I've come to find out the hard way recently that some editors will find some form of controversy even with the clearly and undisputely uncontroversial...) Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but with purely technical nominations like this one that's not really relevant, is it? I think even the curmudgeons you might have recently encountered should agree it's a bit of an overkill to let the tool post on several dozen article talk pages because of an odd pair of parentheses. – Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your logic, but that logic is apparently not shared by everyone. One never really knows who might cry fowl when not notified, even over the least controversial issues. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

South Asia

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

I don't know anything about the wikicontroversies surrounding the use of the two terms, so you should correct where I'm wrong, but I think that in language article it's more reasonable to link to the cultural/historical area rather than to what is primarily a physical geographical region. I also think that "South Asia" is more readily recognisable to an average reader and it includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives in a more unambiguous way. So, what am I missing? – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, changing the "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia" or vice versa is always a big bugbear. They basically mean the same geographic area, except that Afghanistan is not included in the former but included in the latter.
See WP:ISA, the style advice, and the links to the old discussions at the bottom. I myself go by Burjor Avari's terminology, "Indian subcontinent" up to 1200 AD, and "South Asia" afterwards.
In this particular case, I would say "Indian subcontinent" is the better term because it shows the link to "Indo-Aryan" and "Indic" terminology. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that "Indian" is primarily a cultural signifier, geographical designation followed the cultural identity. So, removing the "Indian" label basically denies the cultural factor, which some people want to do for pseudo-nationalistic reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, if 1200 AD is the preferred cut-off point, then we should go for "South Asia", as the article is primarily about the contemporary group of languages. One reason that I forgot to mention is that of the two articles South Asia and Indian subcontinent, as the currently stand, the first has a lot more content that's relevant for a reader who would like to read more about the region. Anyway, I'm finding it difficult to understand why you, or anyone who doesn't have a horse in this race, should feel so strongly about this matter, but I don't have the time to read up on the past discussions and see this fits in. So if you would like to change the links, go ahead: I won't object. Also a note that from what I can see, for most of the last couple of years, the article's lede seems to have used "Indian subcontinent", while the infobox (before this edit from March) has had "South Asia". – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Uanfala, it is a good point that South Asia is a more informative page. It is funny that I look at this page as one on ancient Indo-Aryans, whereas you look at it as a page on current languages! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thakur

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

Thanks for spotting these. I've unlinked the word from the first article: that's part of a quoted name, so there's no need to link (in fact, it's ended up as a link only in a recent edit). As for the second article, Sarmal Kshatriya Rajput Clan, it looks like the odd dablink is the least of its problems. Sitush, you haven't seen that one yet, have you? – Uanfala (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
New one to me. Looks a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

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

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

A question

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

Mohammad behrame cyruc, I'm not the best person to contact: I know virtually nothing about Korean history. But in this case, the best solution is to find Persian-language literature on the topic (there must be some!), and see what has been done there. Have the terms been calqued with the equivalent Farsi words for "flesh" and "bone"? Or have the original Korean words (yukpuk and kolbuk [3]) been used unmodified? – Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What the heck??

"try the uncyclopedia website"

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uanfala/Archive_7&oldid=1018591644"