User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 24

Words and quotations:

Spaghetti Weevil

Previous words:

• "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
• awkwardnessful
• anti–zombie-fungus fungus
• comb-shaped people

RE:NATO Phonetic Alphabet Edit

Regarding your response, that was in particular my point. The Ref already in use on the page actually states that outright(iirc it's the first sentence) along with the other ones I linked from the different branches of the military. I just figured I'd bring it up with you so as to avoid potential revisions and re-revisions of revisions but, that source does indeed exist, it's the one actively in use.--Karek^words?! 08:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation - Help!

Hello, I need some help or advice from an experienced WP Editor who knows about the copyright issues involved in submitting material for WP articles, and I am hoping you might be the right person to approach. I contributed a recording of Received Pronunciation for the WP article on RP, and I have just been told it is going to be deleted in 24 hours because I didn't submit it with the right copyright declarations. I find the rules for such things terribly hard to understand. A friendly editor is trying to help me with this, but I really need some backup from someone who understands how things work. You will find all the relevant discussion on my Talk page. I would be grateful for any help or advice. RoachPeter (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant section on Peter’s talk page is here. —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Answered best I can there and by email. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Kwamikagami!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Kwamikagami: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Alor–Pantar languages

Happy New Year, Kwami. I have seen you introduced the recent work of Holton et al. (2012), nice piece of work! About your question about the numerals in Alor-Pantar languages, I have found a link of a coworker of Holton, Frankišek Kratochvíl, the document includes the proto-numerals for proto-Alor-Pantor: this link. Some entries in English Wikipedia, need to be updated according the work you introduced of Holton. For example Wersing language says "It is not part of the Alor–Pantar group" in contradiction with the data you introduced in Alor–Pantar languages. --Davius (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Where do Kula, Retta, and Kafoa/Jafoo belong in their scheme? — kwami (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference does not mention explicitly Kula, but the samples of vocabulary I have found for Kula show that it is very close to Sawila language, this seems to indicate that we have a Kula-Sawila-Kolana group (or Tanglapui-Wersing group) that we can identify with East Alor group of Holton. For Retta and Kafoa, I suppose the answer is the same: "presumably, yes" (but I have not found explicit references), --Davius (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Unhabited areas in maps

Just a comment about a question you probably know. Some inguistic maps in Wikipedia (and on the internet, in general) depict large areas as "unhabited areas", mainly in the north of New Guinea, but this does not seem to correspond with the reality. The Oak Ridge national Laboratory computed a detailed population density map (you can see here). The problem is that the low populated areas do not match with the common "unhabited areas" of many maps (including the maps we use in wikipedia). I know, it is difficult to correct the maps, it is just a comment noting the difficulty, --Davius (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello Kwami, what do you think should we move Georgian alphabet and Greek alphabet to Georgian script and Greek script? Jaqeli (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on the topic we cover. If we concentrate on the script as a whole, including the various Georgian and Greek alphabets, then IMO we should move them, but if the articles are primarily about the application of the scripts to Georgian and Greek, then their current names are probably best. But I doubt it makes much difference. — kwami (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For example in Georgian we call it ქართული დამწერლობა meaning the "Georgian script" and not ანბანი meaning "Alphabet". I think Greek, Georgian, Hebrew should be moved as there is Latin script and Arabic script as they represent not just alphabets but the writing systems. I mean the content of those articles would remain same just the name of the article can be moved. No? Jaqeli (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the move should depend on what the content is. If it's primarily about the script, it should be moved, if it's primarily about the alphabet, it should stay. — kwami (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Happy new year btw :) Jaqeli (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Greek, people almost always speak of the "Greek alphabet". Adaptations to other languages are few and minor, and we give them little coverage, so I think "alphabet" is probably best. In the case of Georgian, is there really *a* Georgian script? Aren't there three? They seem to be more than mere graphic variants or hands along the lines of capitals and miniscules (even if they're sometimes used that way), or roman and italic, or even Fraktur and Insular hand. Since they are largely equivalent, it might be okay to lump them all in as variants of the Georgian "alphabet", but I'm not sure it would be accurate to lump them all together as a single script. Perhaps if the article is moved, it should be to "Georgian scripts"? Though that would presumably need to cover other scripts used for Georgian, such as Armenian and Cyrillic, so might not be a good idea. "Native Georgian scripts"? Maybe it would be easier just to leave it where it is.

Happy New Year to you too! — kwami (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I also think that it should stay as it is now as it is more simple for everyone to understand. But what exactly do you mean about Armenian and Cyrilic? These two scripts were never used for Georgian language. Jaqeli (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad then. That removes one objection to the move. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

{{World writing systems}}

OK then let it be the way it is now. Also wanted to ask you can you please check this template? I have a feeling that there should be 1 or 2 more writing systems to be added there and maybe you know which scripts are left? If there's any. Jaqeli (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Mongolian. Canadian. Cherokee. Tifinagh. Nko. Mandaic. Santali. Thaana. Yi. Pollard. Braille. And that's disregarding scripts that are not or are no longer in widespread use, such as Manchu, Zhuyin, and Vai. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Mongolian. I can't believe I forgot it. Jaqeli (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What's your criterion for inclusion? Why Mongolian but not Canadian? If at a national level, why include Syriac? — kwami (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Being distinct writing system is a criteria. There are thousands of alphabets etc but only dozen of writing systems. Does Canadian meet such criterias? Syriac is a distinct writing system and that's why I've added it. You think it should not be there? Jaqeli (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, Cherokee script, tifinagh, Nko, Mandaic script, Santali script, Thaana, Yi script, Pollard script, and braille are all distinct scripts. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All of those scripts are no more used. And the template lists only the writing systems of the world today only. Is Braille a writing system as such? Jaqeli (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

They are used. Canadian is official in the territory of Nunavut and used across the Canadian arctic. Thaana is the official script of an entire country. The 10 million Santals consider Ol Ciki to be their script. Cherokee is taught in schools. Tifinagh is official in Morocco, I think; it's at least taught in schools and appears on government buildings. Nko is popular and used in markets and book stores. Yi is official in China. Pollard is more limited, as is Pahawh Hmong, which I forgot to mention, but I've seen the latter in the US. Yes, braille is certainly a script (or scripts). Mandaic may be moribund, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. But how many people need to use a script before you add it to the template? It's not really "the" scripts of the world today, just the scripts that you think important enough to include. But why those? Forgive me, but Georgian, Hebrew, and Armenian aren't used by very many people, and only a few 100,000, if that, use Syriac. — kwami (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There's also a Western bias inherent in the list. All the Brahmic scripts are lumped together. We could just as easily lump Greek, Latin, and Cyrillic together. They are, after all, essentially the same thing, and just as close as Tamil, Tibetan, and Thai. Or we could lump together the Aramaic scripts (Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac). What we're basically saying is that South and Southeast Asian scripts aren't important enough to bother distinguishing. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

With all respect I cannot agree. Georgian, Hebrew and Armenian are scripts of top-importance. Those that you've listed above have no real importance when those three have. There are five true alphabets in the world and those are Georgian, Greek, Cyrilic, Latin and Armenian. There are also some abjads of top importance. Indic scripts, Japanese, Chinese and Korean writing systems and that is all. These are the writing systems which have the top importance and not some minor "scripts" like Nko or Cherokee. Jaqeli (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you determine "top importance"? Syriac has no real importance outside of its community, yet you included that. Georgian, Armenian, Hebrew, and Korean have no real importance outside their communities either, yet you include them. Yet Hindi is not listed, nor is Bengali, Burmese or Thai. Since you changed it to "major" scripts, I removed minor scripts, defined as scripts used by only one national language. (Maybe Greek should be restored due to its use in science and mathematics.)

Also, what is the purpose of the template? I don't see how it would be an aid in navigation. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You're repeating that Georgian and Armenian are of "top importance". They're not. They're minor scripts of no importance outside of the Caucasus and their ethnic communities in the diaspora. Yet you exclude international scripts used by hundreds of millions of people who are not in your neighborhood. That's quite ethnocentric. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgian, Armenian, Hebrew, and Korean have no real importance? Are you serious? These are writing systems with top-importance and are one of those very few writing systems used in the world today. Hindi and all others are Brahmic scripts and they are one family scripts. Maybe Greek? You even removed the Greek from the template? Purpose of the template is to show the major writing systems of the world. Jaqeli (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, how do you define "top importance"? If you're going to lump Nagari, Bengali, Tibetan, and Thai together, you should lump Greek, Latin, and Cyrillic together, and the same with Arabic and Hebrew. I changed "major" to "international", which at least has a defined meaning. Armenian, Georgian, Hebrew, and Korean are only used by one nation each (divided in the case of Korea). I included Greek as an international script because of its use in science and mathematics. Other than that, it's also relatively minor. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing systems of the world

I don't understand why are you arguing with me? There 5 alphabets: Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Georgian and Armenian. 2 abjads: Arabic and Hebrew. Brahmic abugidas and Japanese, Chinese and Korean writing systems and these are of top importance. Also Georgian is not only used for Georgian language but for other Kartvelian languages. It was historically used also for other Caucasian languages as well. How can this be disputed? Jaqeli (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You're only defining importance relative to yourself. I've asked you several times: How do you decide which scripts are important? Create an objective criterion, include all scripts which match that criterion, exclude all those that don't, label the template appropriately, and you'll have an balanced list. (That does not address whether the template is of any practical use, but I'm not worried about that.) — kwami (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you're edit warring over your ethnocentric POV, I'm removing the template from the articles you added it to. It serves no purpose other than to claim that minor nations like Georgia and Armenia are of greater importance than many much larger nations. — kwami (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

baleine

[balɛn], [baleɪ̯n] or [balɐɪ̯n]. Which one is the closest pronunciation ? 162.222.81.148 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Something like 2 or 3. At first I heard [ˌbalăˈeːn], now I'm not so sure. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement over editing on the "Serbian language" article

I answered you on the article's talk page, but I hope you don't mind to put my answer here as well.

Thank you for suggestion to read WP:BOLD, but I would kindly ask you to read the following article: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I will excerpt the first two paragraphs for you:

Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". This is not very helpful or informative, and, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, should probably be avoided. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection.

These two quoted paragraphs discredits your stance. They are Wikipedia policy, after all. RegardsKlačko (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting because this article has a long history of edit warriors insisting that only they have the Truth. This is not helpful. Since you want to change a contested figure, one that has been argued over for years, you should wait for others to chime in. It's not just that your change does not have consensus, but that the status quo ante does have consensus. When you want to change consensus, it's up to you to actually change the consensus, not just to imagine that people would agree with you once they understood the Truth of your position. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it's pitty to see that you didn't put any argument a propos that Wikipedia article that I reffered to and quoted it which discredits your "getting consensus first" stance.

Secondly, those figures that I putted are not my truth or the Truth, for that matter. They are just the official data coming from respective national statistics offices, all of them being sourced with links pointing to webpages from which they are taken (those webpages are by rule the official websites of statistical offices).

Thirdly, I find it hard to understand that official data would cause another fight. I find it even harder to understand or rather believe that data (those in "Geographical distribution" section, for example) which are complete non-sense and not supported by any source whatsoever were reached by consensus at the first place. After all, it was you who a day ago change by yourself those very same figures in the infobox (which were ridiculously high, something like 13 million in ex-Yugoslavia and another 10 million abroad) and I didn't see that you tried to reach a consensus before, the very one you are insisting now in our discussion.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You do understand that it's possible for people to reach different conclusions than yours, right? You're mixing dates when we have a more recent figure. You're also engaging in WP:SYNTH by combining figures from different sources. That may all be fine, but it's worth a discussion. As in talking it over with the other people who edit that article. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your argument with WP:SYNTH, but I am not sure if it is applicable in this case. Territories of Former Yugoslavia where Serbian language is either official or recognized minortiy language are not countless but only 5 (Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia and Macedonia). If we have official data for each and every one of those 5 countries, there is no much space for speculation and is, in my opinion, fine to combine those figures and reffered to respective census data.

I find it interesting that you don't have problem with "Geogrpahical distribution" section in that article which is full of non-sense, non-verifiable and non-sourced data. Did you ask yourself are those data reached by consensus?

Well, I have a proposal to make: let those edits of mine stay for a while and see if someone other than you challenge them. I think it's the way we can see are these official census data acceptable to other editors or not. RegardsKlačko (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

PS - Still, you didn't make your stance vis-a-vis Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" since your rationale behind reverts of my edits was "no consensus" argument.

Hi, lurker mixing in here — Klačko, you seem to be describing Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" as Wikipedia policy, but in fact it is not; it is an essay. It does not itself have consensus (if it did, it could be turned into, perhaps not a policy, but at least a guideline). I personally do not agree with that essay. There is properly a small but important bias in favor of stability, and without consensus or other good reason to change, the status quo ante is what controls. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will agree with you about that, well, essay. Nevertheless, since you mentioned good reason for editing, I think that good reason for editing is changing non-verifiable and non-sourced data with official census data backed by links that lead to the sources which are all respective statistics offices' census pages. Klačko (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits of the case, as I'm almost totally ignorant of South Slavic linguistic issues. --Trovatore (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Since when did data taken from a reliable source become "non-verifiable and non-sourced"? Excuse me, but that sounds like bullshit: I'll say anything, no matter how ludicrous, if that means people will give up arguing in exasperation. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please concentrate, I said for "Geographical distribution" section that data there are non-verifiable and non-sourced. I edited the list in that section as well, putting official census data for each and every one of the countries listed with sources but you reverted even those edits as you reverted the infobox edit on the number of speakers. Seems that you reverted the whole edit (which included ,besides updated data in that list in "Geographical distribution" section, updated linguistic map of Montenegro from 2011 census) just because of data in the infobox... If that date and source in the infobox matters that much and you think is more credible than official census data, well be it, but for god sake don't block other edits such as updating and refferencing the list in the "Geogrpahical distribution" or updated linguistic map. Are you ok with that?

PS My intention is not to exasperate you, I am bona fidae trying to explain my edits that you reverted in constructive manneer in order to reach some common ground with you, but you don't seem to appreciate or get my intentions right. Hopefully, it will change.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's not me you need to convince. You may be completely correct in your calculation, but I'm not judging that (except for the false claim that your data is from 2011). Because we have a long history of edit-warring over the population of Serbian, I think it's up to you to *demonstrate* that your 1991–2011 figure is better – not just to claim it is, or complain that people are being blind or unfair, but to start a section on the talk page that will convince rational editors of that article that we should go with your personal calculation rather than the figure from the 2006 Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. There are several good and respectable editors of the article, and if they agree that yours is better, then we have consensus to use your figure. — kwami (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"When a piece occurs in both tai shogi and maka dai dai shogi, it moves and promotes the same way."

From the tai shogi article. This isn't entirely true of promoted pieces – the free bear is BrlRfA in maka dai dai, but it is BrlRffN in tai. Double sharp (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless one of those descriptions is wrong! — kwami (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the latter; adding the alfil move to the bishop move is not completely useless, but it's not that useful (it only grants some jumping power). What does ja.wp say? (Hopefully they'll quote the Edo-era sources again...) Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The blind bear promotes to a free bear in Maka and Tai and to a flying deer in Taikyoku. A single diagram illustrates the free bear. That is, according to WP-ja, it has the same move in those two games. The free bear is the promoted value of different pieces in Taikyoku, and in that game has a different move. (You can see the diagrams there.) In Maka and Tai, the two Japanese articles have the same text down to the letter. The footnote says,

『象戯図式』と『諸象戯図式』では横と斜めに何マスでも動け、斜め前には2マス先に他の駒を越えて進めるとなっている。

Shōgi Zushiki and Sho-Shōgi Zushiki say it moves any number of spaces horizontally and diagonally, and diagonally forward it can pass over another piece (other pieces?) two spaces ahead.

『象棋六種之図式』では横と斜めに何マスでも動けるが、他の駒を越えて進む動きは示されていない。

Shōgi Rokushu-no Zushiki says it moves any number of spaces horizontally and diagonally, but doesn't illustrate a move of it passing over another piece.

The caption to the diagram says, in WP's voice,

横と斜めに何マスでも動ける。斜め前には駒を飛び越えて進めるが、他の方向には飛び越えては行けない[2]。

Moves any number of spaces horizontally and diagonally. Diagonally forward it can advance by jumping over a piece, but it can't do this in other directions.

I'd read that as a ranging jump diag. forward, and ranging to the sides and diag. backwards, and if I remember right the solid stars in the diagram are the WP-ja convention for a ranging jump. But the original text seems to have it jumping the adjacent two squares only. Maybe they got confused w the dbl star and thought it was a ranging move? I'm getting more and more concerned about the quality of the WP-ja descriptions. If I had to make a best guess, I'd say it can jump one or maybe two pieces in the 1st or 2nd square, and range if it doesn't jump, but I'd want a native speaker's reading to be sure.

I don't know where you get a knight's move. I don't think I've ever seen a piece with a knight move apart from the knights.

BTW, I have no idea how to read "BrlRfA" notation. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The knight's move was present in the tai shogi article beforehand. Looks like it is an error, but now I'm not sure what to correct it to.

For the notation, see [1]. "BrlRfA" means: moves as bishop (B), to the right or left (rl) as rook (R), and jumps to the second square on the forward diagonals (fA). Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have no idea why ja.wp puts a star on the adjacent square – that seems redundant. (It's not so much a jump as a step, isn't it?) Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's odd. I'd have to compare w other pieces to see what it's supposed to mean. What I suspect is that you can jump pieces on those two squares, but who knows. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

secondaire

Are you capable to guess this pronunciation is [sœɡõdɛːχ] or [sœɡõdæːχ] ? 166.48.189.192 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the latter? I'm not sure though, because I'm used to Usonian /æ/, and I don't really know how close that is to canonical [æ]. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear both /ə/ and /ɛ/ as considerably retracted vowels [œ̠] and [æ̠ː]. But if you really want such a narrow transcription also note that /d/ is clearly dental [d̪]. —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's true for standard French too. It's the vowels which differ. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparing only the vowels of this recording the realisation of /ɛ/ is much lower/opener than that of /ə/. —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hindi

You're welcomed to discuss there. I already typed in my questions waiting for your answer.75.168.189.114 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many, many times. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Where? And I don't care until I'm given a good reason why you reverted my edit. What Hindi are you even talking about? In the article List of languages by number of native speakers, it clearly says "Part of Hindi languages family. Includes approx. 100 million speakers of other Hindi languages not counted below. Mutually intelligible with Urdu." Hindi languages include Standard Hindi and Standard Urdu. The number already excluded the number of Urdu speakers. It's either you are wrong or the article List of languages by number of native speakers has a wrong information. And again, I started the discussion in the talk page. You have ignored it and kept reverting me. I'm waiting for your reasonable response for what you did in the Hindi talk page. What is your problem?75.168.189.114 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, now after you pointed it out. I see what the figure note is saying now. The link for 295 million speakers should be hindi languages, not just Hindi to clear up the confusion so people will not get confuse the number again. To make it ease for the future, I strongly suggest that you change the link from Hindi to Hindi languages in List of languages by number of native speakers.75.168.189.114 (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not really Hindi languages either. That has a separate number of speakers according to the census (400M or s.t.). Rather, it's an arbitrary conflation of the two conceptions of Hindi, and as such doesn't correspond to anything in reality. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds crazy to me. Why do we even bother to list a language with native number of speakers that is not really exist? I'm surprised that nobody on Wikipedia has thought about this nonsense and at least made a attempt to fix this bogus. As the way it is present in the article List of languages by number of native speakers right now is very misleading and completely wrong to what the number actually represents. No wonder why there has been many misleading discussions about this. I have a proposal in mind that able to fix this messy problem. Take out the Hindi and its number. Either add Hindi languages and its corresponding native speakers or add 180 m for Hindi (supposedly the standard Hindi).75.168.189.114 (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, no good sources for this kind of thing. The general article goes by Ethnologue and the Swedish encyclopedia. The India article goes by the national census. But if we start messing with the numbers we know to be wrong, we're left w suggesting the other numbers are correct, when many of them will be wrong too, and there's no end to the potential OR battles. The problem is that no-one has done the necessary survey work in India for maybe half a century. Nigeria's a similar problem. In that case, the govt is afraid to conduct an honest census because it might upset local power balances. And for the rest of the world we often have bad data for a variety of other reasons. The only absolute solution is to delete those articles along with the population figures in the language articles, but people are curious about this kind of thing. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Article titles

What do you think of having articles a star and its exoplanet at very different locations? --JorisvS (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me unless we have enough info to warrant splitting the article, which I doubt would happen very often. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yolngu sign language

Kwami, My source did indeed say that YSL is used as the primary language of the local deaf community. I'll clarify that tomorrow, when I have access to that information. According to the article I cited, the current Wikipedia article is wrong in some points. I'll do my best. You and I keep editing so many of the same articles. Pete unseth (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Nepal

In editing Languages of Nepal, you say that it is "silly to assign a number" yet the number I used is what is provided in the Ethnologue, and there is nothing silly about providing a relevant fact. (The number on the Ethnologue is not 100% definitive, but it is a good resource.) Then you changed "120-some languages" to "the hundred or so languages" even though "hundred of so" is not equivalent to more than 120, which is the actual number. Can you tell me what your reasons are for changing these items? Cheers. --BB12 (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a fact, and they are equivalent.

Ethnologue is one count, made for the purpose of translating scripture. Other purposes would result in differing counts, and Ethnologue is frequently criticized for over-splitting; where Ethnologue counts 7,100 languages in the world, others might count 4,500. With the number you gave, all we could say is that one organization estimated that 121 different translations of the Bible would be needed for all the (native) people of Nepal. That isn't really the same thing as saying there are 121 languages in Nepal.

"121" suggests an exact count, which is certainly wrong even by Ethnologue's POV, just as giving the population of Nepal as "26,494,504" is wrong. (If that figure ever was correct, it became obsolete within minutes.) "120" is also inappropriate, as that suggests the number is 115–125, an unwarranted degree of precision. "100" is about as good as we can do, though it's fine to say E17 counts 121 languages, just as it's fine to say the 2011 census counted 26,494,504 people. I wouldn't put the E17 count in the lead, though, as there's nothing official or particularly reliable about it. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"About 100" is just as misleading. Based on the first line of your response, it looks like you are more interested in arguing then discussing the issue, so I will stop following this page and the Languages of Nepal page. --BB12 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The first line was a summary, pointing out where I thought you were wrong. I appreciate it when people say what they mean up front, without me having to wade through paragraphs to find it. You haven't given any reason for your claim, and if you're going to stop following an article just because we have to actually discuss the reasons for our edits, then you can't be very serious about it. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all-round good work, but especially this edit. Keep it up! Green Giant (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Forms of the alphabet derived from that used to write Latin in ancient times

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

move of Languages written in a Cyrillic alphabet to Cyrillic-derived alphabet?

Hi Kwami. Shouldn't we move it? There's Latin-derived alphabet already. Jaqeli (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No. First, they are not alphabets. For that we have Cyrillic alphabets. Second, the alphabets are not derived from Cyrillic, they are Cyrillic.

I moved the Latin article. It's a terrible name. — kwami (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Roman alphabets? Why not to "languages written in a Latin script? Jaqeli (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Because they're alphabets, not languages. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Their languages are written in Latin script and they are alphabets as well. Ukrainian alphabet, Serbian alphabet etc. Jaqeli (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Languages are not alphabets. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I said they are also alphabets. Ukrainian alphabet, Serbian alphabet exist as much as Turkish alphabet, Swedish alphabet, etc. Jaqeli (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't make it true. Writing is a code for language. A language is not an alphabet. Ukrainian alphabet and Ukrainian language are two different things. — kwami (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That article was a content fork anyway, so I merged it into the alphabet article. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello :), since you have protected this thread [2], then can you please help in a little dispute? as you can see on the Revision history, this guy removes sourced edits. Thank you :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into another stupid nationalistic edit war. Take it to the talk page or one of the Wiki projects? — kwami (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for bothering, and thanks for at least answering me unlike others who can't even bother to write that they don't have time to do it, or won't. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There are probably quite a few editors who are tired of this. There's also ANI, 3rd comment, etc. if you're not getting any attention. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Sicilian Sign Language

hi, ok thanks for answer in User:Ntennis. yes, for SSL. --SurdusVII (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of duplicate minor planets lists

I believe you created most of the lists of numbered minor planet names, and I would like to suggest a small clean-up by deleting duplicate pages. The links are listed below, after a copy of the discussion on my talk page. I suggest using the db-g6 speedy deletion tag on them, as I did before it was reverted. — M3TAinfo (view)

You need to notify the articles creator when nominating an article for deletion. I don't really understand your reasoning in the first place. Also, the user that created them has over 320,500 edits and, thus, presumably knows what they are doing. -- John Reaves 04:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to fix an issue with old pages still showing up in the category index for minor planet names. The lists of names are all in blocks of 500 for minor planets numbered under 10,000, so the pages for e.g. 5001-6000 that simply include the two pages for 5001-5500 and 5501-6000 are redundant and can be deleted. Additionally, for some reason the 3001-3500 block is split into groups of 100, which I had copied to the 3001-3500 page instead of the include directives, and then deleted the content from the 3001-3100 etc.pages to prevent duplication and confusion. I have notified User talk:Kwamikagami about this. — M3TAinfo (view) 04:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meanings_of_minor_planet_names is the correct category index, but viewing Category:Lists_of_meanings_of_minor_planet_names gave some unnecessary duplication. This Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–3500 now contains the data from pages holding groups of 100 names, to conform to the rest of the pages under 10k that are arranged in similarly sized blocks.

The following pages are the source of that content, and can now be deleted: [correct, or maybe rd'd to preserve histories]

• Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–3100
• Meanings of minor planet names: 3101–3200
• Meanings of minor planet names: 3201–3300
• Meanings of minor planet names: 3301–3400
• Meanings of minor planet names: 3401–3500

These pages simply included two blocks of 500 and can also be deleted: [no, required for navigation]

• Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–3000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–5000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–6000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 6001–7000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 7001–8000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–9000
• Meanings of minor planet names: 9001–10000

The first set appear to be redundant now, and could be safely deleted, assuming no differences in content have crept in since you consolidated them. Personally, I would turn them into rd's in order to preserve the article histories, though I don't know if that is actually recommended by our guidelines. (That would have the added benefit of not having to go through the hassle of a formal deletion.)

The second set, however, are required for navigation. There isn't any actual duplication of content, since they are transclusions of the pages with the data. Those pages could presumably be merged into the target pages, as you did with 3001–3500, assuming they don't run up against WP:SIZE. Though if I remember right, SIZE might be the reason they're in blocks of 500 in the first place.

Or you could recode the footer template in the MP lists to display the 500-block name lists for n < 10,001. That's may be the more elegant solution, but is more than I wanted to bother with. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected the 3001-3500 block sub-pages, as suggested. I'm not sure how to do the template editing you describe, so I'll leave that for the moment, but it's something to look at. Thanks for the help. — M3TAinfo (view) 12:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The easy way would be to duplicate the template and change that one thing. Trying to figure out if there is a way to automate it in a single template is more trouble than I think it's worth.

If we do create a variant template, then if the higher name ranges ever bump into SIZE, it would be easy to split them and change from template1 to template2 on the list page. But that might never be needed. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked and the template already does this (goes in 500 blocks until 10k, then in 1000 blocks) and the footers for these pages are incorrect, linking to the previous/next 500 size blocks. So, I'm going to do the same redirect thing as for the 3000's pages on each of these. I'll redirect to the lower 500 block in the range.

Shame, as I was wanting to play around with templates. Thanks. — M3TAinfo (view) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. I checked again, and the lists still link to names in the 1000's, so you can still play with the template to fix this. I'm reverting your edits for the 2nd set. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Where are they linked to? In the 1000s template, even when it is used for the 500-size blocks, the middle link goes to a 'List of minor planets' covering a 1000-size block, like this: List of minor planets: 2001–3000, not this: Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–3000, and there were redirects for those, which are not needed any more, since I fixed the template. Ah - my mistake - I see that the lists of minor planets link to the 1000-sized lists of names. I'll take another look at the template and see what I can do to fix it. Sorry, I didn't notice that before, so thank's for checking. — M3TAinfo (view) 05:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear where I was looking. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Signed Polish

The article Signed Polish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As written, fails WP:GNG. Longer Polish article also doesn't seem to be well referenced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't get the best results if you only search in English; it's just as notable as Signed English (to the extent that Polish is as notable as English, anyway), and WP is trying to address its anglocentric bias. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kenyan English

Hello Kwamikagami. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kenyan English, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, turned it into a circular link and tagged it as not being disfunctional. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HelenOnline 08:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Paite Kuki Zomi/Sou stuff

We obviously have an editor pushing his side of an ethnic conflict here. I've told him I'll block him if this continues. I've added some sources to a few of the articles he's been 'revising'. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted sourced text including the Indian list of scheduled tribes, so he's gone. There's still some mess left behind that I don't think I can deal with. And he'll probably be back as a sock. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed most of their edits. I don't know what to do with Manipur, which has been edited a lot since, or Guite people, which didn't make much sense before the edited. Rv'd similar IP edit (203.81.71.71) at Zou language. Category:Mizo clans should be watched; Chin people obviously doesn't belong there. (I assume that the Mizo "clans" are actually tribes, and the Category:Kuki tribes are actually nations (tribal peoples), but I don't know the area.) — kwami (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed a section from Guite that basically said we don't know their history, which makes no sense given the long list of princes. But it's a mess. I don't know the area either, but I do know pov editing. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian language note

Firstly, do not remove sourced content just like that. The formulation/source is lifted directly from the authoritative Britannica encyclopedia. The note does not explain that "SC language" is the name of the language called SC?" but that "SC is an arbitrary term of convenience used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs and other South Slavic groups such as Montenegrin." I.e. it explicitly explains the language as shared by several ethnicities. The term is not definite. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 12:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not from the EB, and if we're going to "lift it directly" then we should quote it. Also, no need to say it's "South Slavic" in the lead; that's just another answer to the same silly edit war, and belong in the classification section. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It is from the EB [3], and is also used in the ~Britannica educational source you maleovelently claim to be "sub-par". Your POV-pushing will not go by untolerated and if you keep it up I will take this to the noticeboard straight away. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced to the EB. And knock off the silly threats: If you want to present a POV, make sure it's backed up by 2ary RS's. Certainly "translating" the EB to push your own ideology is unacceptable. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Translating "term of convenience" as "arbitrary" is certainly acceptable. The term is not definite as there is no "Serbo-Croatian" people, however according to your POV the term should be considered definite since Serbo-Croatian truly belongs to the Serbs and Croats whereas the Bosniaks and Montenegrins are merely offshots of the Serbs and Croats. Spare me such nationalist drivel please. The wording has now been changed to reflect the phrasing used by EB. Also, Britannica educational is a respected publisher, calling its sources "sub-par" simply because they do not serve your agenda is beyond the pale. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care to have this nonsense on my talk page. Take it to the article discussion page where it belongs. And you might consider that being outraged isn't a convincing argument. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey don't look at me, I'd rather we not have this discussion. The source is verifiable and reliable. The note explicates that the term is of convenience rather than definite, and that the language is in fact shared by several peoples (not immediately apparent otherwise). All in line with reality. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course you'd prefer that everyone just agree with you. But it doesn't work that way in real life. Again, take the discussion there. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Asian art museums

Hi Kwamikagami. I've just reverted your redirect of Category:Asian art museums to Category:Asian-art museums because I don't understand the rationale. What is an Asian-art museum? I also re-added the Hong Kong Museum of Art to the category because it certainly does display Asian art. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I first thought it was for Asian museums of art, as that's what it said, then realized it was for museums of Asian art. It should probably be reworded to make that clear; the hyphen isn't a very good solution. — kwami (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

I've opened up a case the dispute resolution noticeboard which involves you Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bosnian Language". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88

Have you seen this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Or rather what it used to be?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I hadn't, but I'd removed the 'Ryukyu' cat. because it was redundant w the existing Ryukyus cats. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've sent him a message saying it might be better to turn it into a task force within WP:JAPAN but I'm finding so many errors with what he's done. He tagged a bunch of talk pages with a "template" for his WikiProject but they were all the raw text and he never made an actual template. I feel bad because he's put some effort into this, but it's all broken and malformed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Countries with Female Heads of State and Government.svg

Can you change CAR to indicate the president/head of state is s female and not head of govt. Shes president now.(Lihaas (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)).

Thanks. Both, actually, as Domitien was PM. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Domitien? Nicholas Tiangaye was prime minister before resigning a week or so ago(Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)).

1975. Check the article. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your page moves

Apart from the disruptive nature of implementing the hyphen when the discussion about that is still ongoing, I note that you are performing some of those moves rather clumsily. For example, you moved Open-access mandate, but let the connected talk page in place. This makes it impossible for other editors to even be aware that there have been prior discussions. Please revert your moves until the discussion has reached consensus or at least fix the talk page moves. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Logo of Wiki

Hi Kwami. Just interested if you know when will the Wiki logo be updated? Any time soon? Or in what time the logo is being changed and updated? Jaqeli (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any plans to update it. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

PUA

These two came up in the daily scan. Atleast it is working.

• Dysbiosis - {PUA}<b>thors=Leclerc, M. C.; Joossens, M.; M
• Second Battle of the Marne - {PUA}==German attack==[[Image:Bunde

Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is! And the nice thing about fixing the backlog is that now we can see them in the edit history and simply revert them. Both of those were stray errors. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian language

Hi Kwami, there's an issue around the title of the Silesian language article. I'd appreciate your input at Talk:Silesian language. --JorisvS (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Romance languages

It came to my attention through edits by Viller the Great that our current classification of Romance languages is a bit of a mess. For example, in some infoboxes (but not limited to them) Occitano-Romance is Iberian Romance, in others it is not, and do have my doubts about the validity. And do we have sufficient support for Italo-Western to include it in the infoboxes or not. I'm not knowledgeable enough to properly fix this. Could you maybe take a look? --JorisvS (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've spent a fair amount of time cleaning them up already, but they get edited or reverted inconsistently. Venetian is another that's problematic. I removed Italo-Western from all boxes some time ago. It's not my area either, though. — kwami (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tamil-Brahmi Help me request

Are you handling Talk:Tamil-Brahmi#Break? If so, would you be so kind to change the {{Help me}} template to {{Help me-working}} while you work on it? It would be greatly appreciated to get it out of the looking for help category (It will still be in Category:Wikipedians being helped if you forget to watchlist it or lose track of it). Thanks a bunch! Technical 13 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. He probably wanted help from someone other than me, but he hasn't responded for 3 wks. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, someone had just changed it, so I reverted myself. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Malay-Indonesian thing in Banana leaf

Your edits on Banana leaf seems to imply your tendency to over-simplify all of Indonesian and Malaysian culture as "Malay". You see the "Malay" identity as the so called race or ethnic groups is perceived differently in Malaysia and Indonesia, and there is complexity in it. You see the examples of banana leaf application in cuisine pepes is more Sundanese, while botok is more Javanese, and why you change the lead to Malay cuisine? Indonesia is much more than Malay identity, here we have Javanese, Sundanese, Minang, Batak, Balinese, Torajan, Dayak, that in Indonesian perspective are not identify themself as "Malay". I suggest you learn more to differentiate this ethnic identity thing and be more sensitive on this cultural delicate differences.Gunkarta (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The coverage did not seem to be Indonesian, but specifically Malay. If I'm wrong, my bad, but the section does not cover much of Indonesia. No mention of Batak, Balinese, Dayak, etc. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

World writing systems template

Kwami, can we somehow achieve a consensus in that template? Maybe we could group the Brahmic scripts together? Also the template is removed from all the articles so wanted to ask you what you think about it and doesn't the template itself have any importance at all? Jaqeli (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates like that are normally to help navigate, and I didn't see much use for it the way it was. Could be useful, I suppose, but why should the brahmic scripts be grouped together? They're more diverse in some ways than Latin, Greek, Georgian, and Armenian. — kwami (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So you suggest we delete that template? Jaqeli (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're not willing to modify the template in a way that others agree with, then yes, there's probably no point in having it. In a lot of articles it would be redundant with the 'history of the alphabet' navbox we already have, though perhaps it would be better to have your shorter navbox for basic scripts. Maybe you could ask at the writing wikiproject if anyone things it would be useful. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

When I created that template the main idea was as you've said shorter navbox for basic scripts but how do you see exactly what the basic scripts are? Can you name them? Jaqeli (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We already have. You don't seem to like it. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Which one? Which scripts can be in a shorter navbox? Jaqeli (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is now. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No compromise possible? Currently it's very messy. Jaqeli (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss it on the project talk page as I suggested? I don't know how we'd remove scripts as "not notable" without engaging in OR. We already ignore those w/o ISO codes, or which are not in daily use. If we went by population, Georgian and Armenian would be among the first to go. If we went by similarity, well, how do you define 'similar'? That's been the objection to your versions: that they're your POV rather than a world POV. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Brahmic scripts are all similar. All of them are members of and descend from Brahmi. That is my main objection. Those scripts which are of Brahmic family should be under one umbrella. Their origin are not disputed and can freely be grouped in that naming. Jaqeli (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As explained to you several times, that is your own quite biased opinion. If you still don't understand, then I propose we delete the template. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support your suggestion and better to delete it as currently I see no use for that template at all. Jaqeli (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Samesex marriage in USA map

What about states that perform ssm & DPs instead of ssm & CUs..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what "DP" stands for. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"DP" stands for "Domestic Partnership" --Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Still don't understand the question. What about them? We don't show either on the map. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You changed the "Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state" to "Civil unions in the United States" and then you asked "How's this?" Well, IMO- I like the first one better because it covers DPs.. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's a far more useful link, and has a map dedicated to CU's, something missing from the marriage map. DP's are the very next section, w their own map. We could link to the top of the article, at Same-sex unions in the United States, but the maps would not be as immediately accessible, so maybe pipe-link to both sections? — kwami (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Zomi/Zo

I don't know if you recall these articles, but I reverted Zomi to Zo after discovering what I thought was copyvio although it turns out the editor had replaced a redirect with material copied from his website. I've been trying to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)#Zou, Zo, Zomi Kuki with this editor who a major COI. So far I've had no response to the actual issues I've raised although one other editor responded earlier agreeing there's a mess. I can understand if you have no interest, but any comments would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wolof

Hi, could you explain your revert on Wolof language? Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 07:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We copied from WP-fr. They transcribe half of the "prenasalized" C's as syllabic nasals plus stops, not as prenasalized stops. I suspect that's a transcription error, but since we're copying it, we should have a ref for the inventory. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Turns out they were wrong. Only mb, nd, nj, ng behave as single consonants. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I saw that you expanded the section along with sources and everything. Nice job! Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes

I'm curious, what do you think about what Mitch Ames said here, especially about Wilkes-Barre vs. Hale–Bopp? --JorisvS (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bengali names

You might wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh#Bengali names (version of 11:10, 30 January 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Devanāgarī

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Devanāgarī page. To be clear the text says:

"The avagraha ऽ अऽ (usually transliterated with an apostrophe) is a Sanskrit punctuation mark for the elision of a vowel in sandhi: एकोऽयम् ekoyam ( ← ekas + ayam) "this one".

So, avagraha is "usually transliterated with an apostrophe" (which is entirely accurate) but here you are insisting that it not be transliterated with an apostrophe. Which seems a bit perverse to say the least - to say how it is transliterated and then use an example in which is it not transliterated. Either it is transliterated or it is not. If it is then it is usual, as the article says, to transliterate it as "eko 'yam". Indeed the present transliteration, the one you reverted to, is incorrect and confusing. "ekoyam" could not come about because of ekas + ayam. Up to you really, I'm not going to get into an edit-war over it, but the contradiction is rather glaring. If no one else is allowed to edit the page, then at least chose an example which demonstrates how the avagraha is used in transliteration rather than one which doesn't use it at all! Jayarava (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? — kwami (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am talking to user = kwamikagami. This is your talk page, yes? Jayarava (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Then what you're saying is nonsense. I never said what you're claiming. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Hi Kwami - Don't refer to good faith edits made during a content dispute as 'transparent lies.' Don't refer to warnings given in good faith (and bluntly, in your best interest) as 'idiotic.' Given how heated this area has gotten, I would advise you to not engage in any behavior that could be construed as editwarring, and further to keep in mind that editwarring that necessarily require more than four reverts on the same page in less than twenty four hours - other patterns, including consistently reverting the same editor's edits on the same subject across multiple pages can qualify just as well, especially when an ongoing discussion on a talk page is occurring about appropriate naming. As a heads up: pages related to Silesia fall under at least one set of discretionary sanctions. I won't be taking any action under those sanctions until I've set up the appropriate editnotices etc on the pages and notified involved editors, but it's worth keeping in mind. You've been here long enough that I shouldn't have to tell you that referring to a good faith edit as a transparent lie is not a good idea.

And keep in mind that although a straw poll can be a useful thing to conduct in some circumstances, the ultimate close of the move request will not depend on how many people vote one way and how many people vote another way. The final close of the move request will take in to account which position puts forth the strongest policy-backed arguments that are supported by reliable sources, not how many people doggy-pile on to the same option. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What a strange warning. Reverting someone with the edit summary "this is not revert" is a transparent lie, and I will call it that. And there's nothing wrong with calling an idiotic edit "idiotic". As for discretionary sanctions, such things need to be posted on the article or they're not valid. As for the straw poll, didn't I just say the thing you're asking me to keep in mind? You might want to actually review edits before commenting on them. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: the next time you refer to something as an idiotic edit that is related to the current Silesian language vs dialect thing (which I have already blocked four participants of,) and at the same time you take the dispute to two pages where that hadn't previously been effected by it and then proceed to make that many reverts of the same editor on the same subject, you are going to suddenly find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia for a period of time.

Re: your point regarding discretionary sanctions, you seem to have overlooked this part of my original post: "I won't be taking any action under those sanctions until I've set up the appropriate editnotices etc on the pages and notified involved editors.." Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, somehow I skipped over that. — kwami (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

notification of discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

• Please note: I have imposed an explicit one revert restriction at Silesian language, regardless of the content involved. I will also be sanctioning editors who have received this warning who perform more than one revert per day on any article on Wikipedia if the content they remove (or add) is related to the debate over whether the subject in question should be labelled as the 'Silesian language' or as a dialect. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Armenia & Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Kuki–Zomi Ethnic Clash 1997–98

I don't know if you are interested in this. I'm trying to improve it but a big problem is that is was created an editor pushing the Zomi nomenclature, and although the clash about about the nomenclature in part at least and the agreement dealt with nomenclature also, sources seem to refer to this as a Zuki-Paite 'clash'. See [4]. Do you see any reason not to rename it? Btw the editor who created this is now resorting to personal attacks, which is why I'm concerned about renaming. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to comment tomorrow when I'm a bit more awake. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, both the Paite and Thadou are Kuki, aren't they? I found the current and suggested names confusing, though that's not much of a reason. I assume it's more than just a name dispute, so wouldn't "Paite–Thadou clash" be more appropriate? (w/o caps and maybe w/o 'ethnic' or the dates, if there's only one.) At least as long as no one name has become set. Or were there more than just the two groups? Is the name suggested on the talk page what you're thinking of?

BTW, rv my edits if they didn't help. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Help

I apologize if I am using this wrong. I am looking for help which is related to the photo you contributed on the Tuareg Languages page.

I have some symbols that I think might be of this language, but I have no clue where to start to translate them. Could you help? Thank you for your consideration.

YarnDiggity (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Translate, or transliterate? I might be able to help w the latter if you post them. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Comet names

We have endashes in comet names, such as in Comet Hale–Bopp and Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. We do not follow the IAU in the interpunction of these names, because they do not distinguish between hyphens and (en)dashes. To distinguish between codiscovered comets and comets discovered by a person with a hyphenated name, the IAU removes the hyphen in the latter case, such as in 105P/Singer Brewster. Do you think we should follow suit in the latter case? If so, why? I tend to say that because Wikipedia has endashes, keeping the hyphen in the latter case is both appropriate and clear. --JorisvS (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what we've been doing so far. A space makes it look like first name + last. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there an efficient way to find those that still have a space in them? --JorisvS (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably easier to just scan the cats than to code anything. — kwami (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Help:IPA_for_German

You are sure that German [r] is spelled like the "t" in "water" ? Can you please explain this to me or offer a source ? 80.132.119.217 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not close to either. In final position it's maybe like the RP r in water. Anyway, probably best to discuss it on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not close to what ? You put the following back in: "like water". I take this you think r is spelled like the t. I know there are two r-sounds in water [ˈwɔːtə]. It's in the [ɔː] and in the [ə] but for sure not in the [t]. 80.132.119.217 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're mixing up spelling with sound and vowel with consonant. Best to take it to the talk page. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, "spelled" was the completely wrong word. How was this list made up ? There was already a question on the talk about this and it didn't get addressed. You are quick to revert. I don't claim to be really qualified, so please explain why you think a German [r] is equivalent to the t in water. Same for "loch" btw. 80.132.119.217 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not equivalent, it's an approximation. Intervocalic /t/ (and /d/) surfaces as an alveolar tap in AmE and other accents. [r] is the alveolar trill; they share the same place of articulation. Some pronounce the 'ch' in loch with a voiceless velar–uvular fricative. [ʁ] has a similar place and manner of articulation, but it's voiced. — Lfdder (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will read a little about that. 80.132.119.217 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Intervocalic /t/ and /d/ do not surface as [ɾ] in all dialects of AmE:

• Some speakers in the Pacific Northwest turn /t/ into a flap but not /d/, so writer and rider remain distinct even though the long i is pronounced the same in both words.
  —Intervocalic alveolar flapping
• In fact, there are some accents where this is less the case: Western New England increasingly seems to use the glottal stop, and I would be unsurprised if several other American accents do as well. Generally speaking, I’ve noticed that various types of ‘t’ lenition, rather than tapping/flapping/voicing, are arguably a bit more common.
  —"Dialect Blog" post Bidder Budder Badder: The Extent of T-tapping, author's reply to first comment

--Thnidu (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto orthography

Do you even know Esperanto?

With reference to your most recent recension of my wiki edits:

1. Dankon pro via korekto de mia redakta fuŝmeto pri "vavo".
   Thank you for correcting my editing misplacement of the text about "vavo".
2. Maldankon pro via insisto, ke ne ĝustas la liternomo "ĝermana vo", kiun mi jam fontis el la respektegata Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto. Pri kio temas?
   No thanks at all for insisting that the letter-name "ĝermana vo"/"Germanic V", which I had already sourced from the highly respected Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto, is incorrect. What's with you there?
3. In translating the relevant part of the entry, I deliberately translated ⟨ŭ⟩ as ⟨w⟩ where it was used as a pronunciation symbol. To an English-speaker, "pronounced ŭ" could only mean, if anything, "pronounced as [ʌ]". You might as well translate a line from a Japanese-Russian dictionary as "The katakana シ is pronounced ши."

--Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(2) I didn't say it was wrong after you provided a source, I merely reverted you for not providing a source. Re. the PIV, it's not particularly well respected, it's just the biggest. (The main criticism is that the PIV does not distinguish between common words and nonce words used once 50 yrs ago, so if you take it seriously you end up saying things like "I have a catarrh" instead of "I have a cold".) Or by ne gxustas do you mean where I said it's "inaccurate"? It is inaccurate, since it's not Germanic.

(3) It makes little sense to say "w" is pronounced like "w". Anybody reading this article knows what "ŭ" is anyway.

— kwami (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Well, now at least I understand what you meant. Yes, I thought you meant that ĝermana vo wasn't really a name for ⟨w⟩.

a. There's a difference between a nonce word – by definition, one not used past the occasion of its coining – and a word that enters general usage for a time and then fades out. I've been using Esperanto for 50 years, and at the time, ĝermana vo was the only respectable name I heard for ⟨w⟩ (duobla vo seemed a calque). So it may be obsolete or archaic now, but this lexeme, at least, was not a nonce word.

b. If ⟨w⟩ is not Germanic (presumably because it is also used in Welsh, Polish, Malay, Swahili…), how does it qualify as German (also used in Dutch, English, Frisian…)?:

• In Europe, there are only a few languages that use W in native words and all are located in a central-western European zone between Cornwall and Poland. English, German, Low German, Dutch, Frisian, Welsh, Cornish, Breton, Walloon, Polish, Kashubian, Sorbian and Resian use W in native words. (W#Usage)
• ⟨w⟩ has been called duobla vo (double V), vavo (using Waringhien's name of va below), and (inaccurately) germana vo (German V) and (inaccurately) ĝermana vo (Germanic V)

3. You butcher my words into a straw man. It makes reasonable sense to say in English that the grapheme ⟨w⟩ is used in different languages with the sound of [v] or [w], depending on the language. Writing for Esperantists who were not linguists, Waringhien wrote "v or ŭ"; translating for anglophones, I translated "ŭ" to "w" (Underlines added):

• duobla vo aŭ ĝermana vo. Nomo de neesperanta grafemo, kun la formo W, w, (prononcata v aŭ ŭ, depende de la lingvoj)
• [double V or Germanic V. Name of a non-Esperanto grapheme, with the form W, w, (pronounced v or w, depending on the language)]

--Thnidu (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense in Esperanto, but not in your English translation. Yes, what you said above makes reasonable sense, but that's not what you say in your edit: You said that the (letter) "w" is pronounced like the (letter) "w". If you wanted to and phonetic virgules to the English, so that the reader could follow when you're talking about letters and when sounds, then that would be okay.

As for 2b, you might as well call it the "gxermana ŭo". There's only one Germanic language which uses W for the /v/ sound, and that's German (and various "dialects" of German), so "germana vo" is accurate, though W is of course also the "pola vo" and the "pra-esperanta vo". It's inaccurate to call it "gxermana" because (a) in most germanic languages which have W, it's not /v/, and (b) because most literary germanic languages do not have W (except in loans). Unless of course Esperanto vo covers both [v] and [w]; then "gxermana vo" would mean "Germanic v/w", implying that [w] in the world's languages should be transcribed by ⟨v⟩ in Esperanto. I believe that's the case, actually, at least among Z and Slavic authors, but I get pushback sometimes from people who try to transcribe English or Japanese personal names in W as "ŭ" rather than as "v". Still, "gxermana vo" means that the Esperanto letter V is like English and Dutch W rather than like English or Dutch V, which is a bizarre opinion even if we accept that Esperanto V can be pronounced as either [v] or [w]. "Germana vo" is more reasonable, as the letter V in German is pronounced as Esperanto F, and only W is equivalent to Esperanto V.

I nearly always heard "germana vo", and I didn't realize how common the "gxermana" form was. I agree "duobla vo" isn't a very good name; that's a common criticism, since there are words in some languages which have an actual double vee. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of I «might as well call it the "gxermana ŭo"». "Ĝermana vo" is, or was, a common name for the letter, as you recognize now. This of yours is based on a misreading of Waringhien:

Still, "gxermana vo" means that the Esperanto letter V is like English and Dutch W rather than like English or Dutch V, which is a bizarre opinion even if we accept that Esperanto V can be pronounced as either [v] or [w]. "Germana vo" is more reasonable, as the letter V in German is pronounced as Esperanto F, and only W is equivalent to Esperanto V.

That would make sense if he were trying to say something about Esperanto ⟨V⟩ (which BTW cannot properly be pronounced [w]). But he's not. He's trying to give a somewhat descriptive name to ⟨W⟩; and he is addressing the Esperantist on the street, so he can't rely on linguistic notation like [ ], / /, { }. The names "ĝermana/germana vo" mean "letter that is used in Germanic languages* / in German for the sound that in Esperanto is written V". I have changed the quotation in that footnote to

duobla vo aŭ ĝermana vo. Nomo de neesperanta grafemo, kun la formo W, w, (prononcata v aŭ ŭ, depende de la lingvoj) [double V or Germanic V. Name of a non-Esperanto grapheme, with the form W, w, (pronounced v or ǔ [that is, with the sound of English "v" or "w"], depending on the language)]

* He may be counting Dutch [ʋ] as a [v]; that we don't do so nowadays is irrelevant. --Thnidu (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So it is inaccurate. English, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages have a /v/, so Esperanto V must be pronouncable as [ʋ] and [w]. But you say it is not pronounceable as [w]. Both can't be true: Either Eo V can be [w], or W is not a gxermana vo. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, PMEG says V can be [w], which makes sense, since it's just an allophone of Ŭ. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(Shakes head in attempt to clear it. In vain: the fog must be external.) What? Please explain exactly where you get English, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages have a /v/, so Esperanto V must be pronouncable as [ʋ] and [w]. --Thnidu (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Sorry, didn't see your reply.

Germanic alphabets have both V and W, so V is also a Germanic vo. In fact, for most Germanic languages it is V rather than W that is pronounced /v/, assuming the have a W at all. Now, it would make sense to call W the *German* vo, as German W is pronounced /v/, like Esperanto V, while German V is pronounced like Esperanto F, and the only German equivalent of Eo V is W. But in English it is (supposedly) V that in pronounced like Eo V, while W is supposedly pronounced like Ŭ, so saying W is the English equivalent of Esperanto V means that English W is closer to Esperanto V than it is to Ŭ, and moreover implies that Esperanto V is closer to /w/ than it is to /v/. Similarly with Dutch: If W rather than V is the Dutch equivalent of vo, then vo must be pronounceable as /ʋ/. (I mean, imagine if someone said W was the "Welsh vo". Since Welsh W is /u/, that could only mean Esperanto V was pronounceable as /u/, right?) And we do get hints of this divergence of vo from /v/, especially in Slavic sources, but Western sources often try to impose a /v/–/w/ distinction on Esperanto by claiming that Ŭ is pronounced /w/ and that V can only be pronounced /v/. Bertilo is the best Western source I've seen for the pronunciation of V, as he notes that it is pronounced /w/ in the sequences kv and gv.

You said above "he may be counting Dutch [ʋ] as a [v]". If so, then from an Esperanto POV, Dutch W /ʋ~w/ and V /v/ are indistinguishable, again resulting in the conclusion that Esperanto V covers both [v] and [ʋ] or even [v], [ʋ], and [w]. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: OK, now I think I see what you're getting at. And I think we may be down to a level of detail here that isn't necessary for the article.

Can you give me a reference for this?:

Bertilo is the best Western source I've seen for the pronunciation of V, as he notes that it is pronounced /w/ in the sequences kv and gv.

--Thnidu (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I should've said "seen recently", as I think I've seen similar descriptions of the allophones of /v = ŭ/ before. Bertilo is here (anoj de iuj lingvoj emas elparoli la sinsekvojn KV kaj GV kiel respektive “kŭ” kaj “gŭ”.) — kwami (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from the beginning I understood "gxermana vo" to refer to the origin of the grapheme and not to imply anything about its pronunciation. Compare ⟨Y⟩, called "Greek I" ("i grec", "i griega") in French and Spanish, as well as "Üpsilon" in German. In French and Spanish, the letter isn't pronounced as it was in ancient Greek, though it is pronounced that way in modern Greek—except after another vowel. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean, vo de la ĝermanoj. But that doesn't seem to be true either: Uu for /w/ started in England, then passed to the German states, then France, then back to England. It wasn't used by the ancient ĝermanoj. And in any case, it was a digraph/ligature for /w/, not /v/; it only became /v/ later, specifically in German. (I assume that's where Polish got it from.) — kwami (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Not a typo

At 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC), I edited Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, mentioning Template:Not a typo.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Those three dots

Don't we need to link it to wiktionary? What was of poor format exactly in my edit? Jaqeli (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We already link to Wikt, in the text. (Though there isn't any more info at Wikt, so the link doesn't provide much anyway.) And it doesn't need to be twice as big as everything else. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The symbol is hardly seen so better to increase its size, no? Jaqeli (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said of its appearance in the text. If the reader needs a larger font size, they can easily increase themselves. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest PUA

Following articles had PUAs from February's dump:

• Substance abuse
• Kaushalya Weeraratne
• Philippine revolts against Spain
• Ira Pastan
• Te Haahi Ratana
• Eye burns

Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AWB val2 edits

Your recent val2 updates with AWB also changed mp template numbers. E.g., on 2007 JJ43, { {mp|(278361) 2007 JJ|43} } } } changed to { {mp|({ {val2|278361} }) 2007 JJ|43}}}}. If that's intentional, then okay (it formats the number, so maybe that's what you wanted), but, if it isn't intentional, consider AWBing it back. Tbayboy (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I wanted, so the numbers would be easier to read. Will change back if it's judged inappropriate.

BTW, once the bugs are worked out, I expect to bot these back to {val}. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't an accident. Tbayboy (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lai languages

Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Talk:Kukish languages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Urdu braille

Thanks for the info, if both Indian Urdu Braille & Pakistani Urdu Braille point to same article Urdu Braille then why can't we have only Urdu Braille and do away with Indian Urdu Braille & Pakistani Urdu Braille. Also if Bharti Braille is not used for Urdu (because it doesn't have many Urdu sounds) then why it is listed there?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Bharati braille is used for Urdu. We list two alphabets because there are two alphabets, just as we list both Urdu and Nagari for Hindustani. The fact that they're described in the same article is rather irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alpha Indi

Do you have a cite for this? I don't recall ever seeing this one before. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's not in Alan, I wouldn't worry about it. I might've been merging the descriptions already found on WP. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok - will remove it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Val2

Template:Val2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lake Ontario

Hi there. I had missed the second measure of the Lake Ontario shoreline at this source [5]. But still, it lists the Lake Ontario shoreline as 726 (length of shoreline in Separate Basin) and 634 (coordinated elements of Great Lakes shoreline). Which of these is correct? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The table at the bottom agreed with the source we already used, which is as far as I checked. It looks like the other table lists the total including islands, though it's off by a few km (712 vs 726). All the lakes are off by a few km, so I suspect that, rather than a typo, the two tables simply have different sources. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting at Sampi

Hi Kwami, I'm not sure I understand your reason for wrapping {{Unicode}} around {{lang}} strings in Sampi. What benefit would that have? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It makes them legible in FireFox, though not, unfortunately, in IE. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? If you are referring to the "epigraphic sampi" characters, the only thing I thought {{Unicode}} did was to call in "Unicode { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode"; }" via CSS – but which of these fonts even contain the character in question? It was added to Unicode only in version 5.1 of 2008, and these fonts are much older and have no chance of supporting it. Also, haven't all browsers/OSs after IE5 or thereabouts had automatic glyph substitution? I would have thought that if a user has difficulties seeing these characters, it would almost invariably be because they truly lack any font that supports them (there are only a handful that do), and if that's the case then no magic of our CSS templates could help them. Can you figure out what font on your system Firefox actually gets these glyphs from, when IE can't? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They look good to me, at least at that font size. W/o forcing unicode, I get unicode-numbered boxes in FF, and empty boxes in IE; after forcing, I get sampi in FF but still empty boxes in IE. I'll see if I can ID the font. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's Gentium Plus, which I have in my personal style sheet. I changed {{unicode to {{IPA in the article for better support. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

But IPA also calls in just the same two fonts as Unicode according to MediaWiki:Common.js, so what difference does it make? Also, given the difficulties with getting these fonts to display (most users will fail to see them, not because of problems with their browsers but simply because they have none of these exotic fonts we are talking about), I'd really much rather we didn't do away with my earlier solution of just using inline graphics, as you did in one of your lastest edits. Those inline graphics my by an ugly technical cludge, but they are there for a reason; they are the only safe thing that guarantees readers will actually see what the topic of the article is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

When did that happen? That needs to be reverted. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Graphics: We were already inconsistent in that article, but change to graphics as you see fit. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

(Also, please note that {{IPA}} also creates popups saying something about "representation in the international phonetic alphabet", which is obviously unhelpful here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't think of that. Will revert. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hellenic languages

Infobox seems to suggest Hellenic, the branch, is synonymous with Greek, but that's not mentioned anywhere in the text. 'Hellenic is the branch ...' implies it's pretty widely accepted -- which I don't think it is. As for the tree, what's the source for it? And why can't it go in Greek language (sans Macedonian)? — Lfdder (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hellenic is the branch, whatever people call it. (We're not a dictionary, so the name of the article isn't particularly important.) Sure, we could merge it into Greek, just as we could merge Sinitic languages into Chinese, but I think we gain some clarity by separating out these issues. — kwami (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The cladogram shows a Greek branch under Hellenic. In the lead it says that "In traditional classifications, Hellenic consists of Greek alone", but in traditional classifications Greek doesnt branch off Hellenic at all; they refer to the one and the same. Some seem to want to call it Hellenic, others Greek. Ive actually never seen Greek branch off Hellenic w/out Macedonian, so the first sentence of the article only makes sense when Macedonian's posited to be a separate 'Greek' language. What a mess. — Lfdder (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly fix-up the wording. Hamp (2012) has "Helleno-Macedonian" for "Greek" + "Macedonian".[6] Reid et al. (2002) speak of the "Hellenic languages" as a branch of IE on par w the Celtic languages etc., and including (at least) Classical and Modern Greek; there are a number of other sources which do the same. Back to 19th-century sources using "Hellenic languages" for Ancient Greek. Dewey Decimal 480 is "Hellenic languages; Classical Greek"; 489 is "other Hellenic languages". ELL2 says "both Tsakonian and Pontic diverge significantly enough from the rest of Greek to merit consideration now as separate languages (though they are still clearly Hellenic)."

A Czech vol. from 2005 (don't have full access) has "Hellenic" as an expanded branch of IE, including "Phrygian, Greek, Macedonian, Paionic, Epirotic."

Gee (1993) says "Indo-European gave rise to ... the Hellenic languages (of which Greek is the only remaining member)".

It's thus not uncommon to find "Hellenic" for the branch, just as some have "Sinitic" for the branch that includes Chinese, regardless of whether Bai is though to be a second Sinitic language. If Greek is the only language is the family, then Greek and Hellenic are synonymous, just as Chinese and Sinitic are if Chinese is the only member of that family. But if other languages, such as Macedonian, are included in the Hellenic family, they may be opposed to Greek proper. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Koya People

Hi,When i click on Koya people it redirecting to Gyele people,Actually Koya people are from Andhra Pradesh,India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Talk2 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Homophones are common. Do we have an article on the Indian Koya that we should also link to? — kwami (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

hi yes,i am planing to write article on koya people of andhra pradesh.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Talk2 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin Europe

I protected Latin Europe due to an edit war. This turned out to be over various languages as can be seen at Talk:Latin Europe#Rfc: can Romance-speaking Europe be added? and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Latin Europe. Just thought that you might know something about this and may be able to assist them. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea. The phrase doesn't occur in any of my e-sources, and the OED only uses it in the sense of Western Christendom. But Mr. Stradivarius is usually reliable, so I'd take his conclusions seriously. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll keep an eye on them. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkish language map

Hi Kwamikagami, What is your reason for remove the map? I guess, a violation or inaccuracy in question. I don't see anything mistake here. Maurice07 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to the new map, but the old one is more informative, IMO. You could use both. I haven't reviewed your other edits. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Using both together, not a problem for me but previous map disputed and has not reliable sources.For insatance, Turkish is official language in Republic of Cyprus but it's shown as a minority language here. Also, thank u for your constructive behavior on Turkish language Maurice07 (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a minority language. It's hardly even spoken on the Greek side. Whether it's official has nothing to do with that. — kwami (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for reverting your reversion. I really don't know how it happened. Bevo74 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we attempted to revert the same vandalism? — kwami (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

KY decision

Despite a lot of sloppy reporting, it's perfectly clear that the decision in Bourke v. Beshear is about recognizing same-sex marriages, not recognizing same-sex marriages just from other states. Check out the difference between the headline and the first sentence of this article, for example.

The lead plaintiffs were wed in Canada. But I don't think adding a citation to the footnote in question is a good idea. That map with all its notes are already very complicated. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

IPA

Hello! I don't think I ever got around to thanking you for your edits to Stapes by inserting the IPA pronunciation. This is something I have never thought about, but very important for many of our anatomy articles (which are often titled from Latin and/or have rather strange pronunciation). I work primarily with anatomy and medical articles under WP:ANATOMY and was wondering if we'd occasionally be able to ping you in the future for similar work on our other articles? --LT910001 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Glad to. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Javanese typo?

I just happened to notice a word spelled "panjengenan" in Javanese_language#Daily_conversation. Since there were 4 other mentions of a word "panjenengan" I just have to wonder - is "panjengenan" a typo? Shenme (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It would appear to be. Panjenengan is the krama word for 'you', which makes sense in this context, while 'panjengenan' only gets 3 hits on GBooks, which themselves appear to be typos. But I don't know Javanese. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Faqih al-Muqaddam

Hi, I was wondering what is the reason to remove the IPA of the arabic name? If it is wrong, I think you should correct it, not remove it entirely.

Buhadram (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't just "wrong", it wasn't even IPA, just the roman orthography with some apparently random symbols thrown in. Since I don't know how to pronounce the name, I'd only be guessing if I fixed it. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Buhadram (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Well, according to WP:IPA for Arabic, the representation of arabic pronunciation is as I wrote before, not random symbol.

But you didn't follow IPA for Arabic. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indo-Pacific languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tori language and Garia language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit

I saw your edit at Latin peoples‎ and I'd like to ask you to also comment on the on going discussion at Talk:Latin peoples‎. Thanks in advance 79.117.160.159 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

chè

This pronunciation is [t͡ʃɛ] or [t͡ʃæ] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like what a lot of people transcribe as [æ] but to me sounds like it's between [æ] and [ɛ], maybe because of my accent. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

SignWriting and Si5s

Hi Kwamikagami, looking at your edits for Si5s and ASL, I see that something is wrong. Si5s is not the handwritten form of SignWriting, although it may look similar. SignWriting has several forms of handwriting including cursive and shorthand. These forms existed decades before Si5s was conceived. Additionally, Si5s claims it was not based on or influenced by SignWriting.

SignWriting includes the block printing mostly seen online and SignWriting includes handwriting. A short essay is available online that explains the differences between the computerized block printing and the handwritten variations. I can understand saying that "Si5s resembles a hand written form of SignWriting". I can maybe understand saying that "Si5s is a handwritten form of SignWriting.", but it is definitely not "the handwritten form of SignWriting". Thanks for you consideration. Slevinski (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ancêtre

This pronunciation is [ɑ̃sɛːtχ], [ɑ̃saɪ̯tχ] or [ɑ̃sɐɪ̯tχ] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the middle one. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This one is [nɐɪ̯ʒ], right ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks right. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This one is [pœtɑɪ̯tʀ] with an [ɑ] sound ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to me. The three sound just about the same to me. I can't tell if I'm hearing diffs in the vowel or just the consonant. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean the same diphthong to you ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I can convince myself I hear the differences you transcribe (except for the last one), but I don't know if I would hear it if you hadn't prompted me. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This one is hard to know that it is [sʊŋ], [soŋ] or [sɔŋ]. 166.48.189.93 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a diphthong, very much like English /ou/. I wouldn't want to have to ID the endpoints, though. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• fight [faɪ̯ʈ]:
• fête [fɑɪ̯t]:

Do you hear the difference, now ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The accent's different, but I'd probably transcribe both as [ɐɪ̯]. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language

Look http://www.unpo.org/members/7884

only in iran 30-35 millions Azerbaijani people live there and in Azerbaijan it is 9.2 millions. How native speakers written there 23 millions? there is a proof I have sent.. just u need to simple calculation.

best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azecorrector (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't do our own calculations. See no original research. We base our figures on published, reliable sources. See reliable sources. If you think you have better, please take it to the talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Val / Val2

Hi Kwami please revert this edit it looks to be a pretty clear case of continuing the edit war even though it is currently being discussed in two other places. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit is entirely appropriate, and there has been no edit war over it. It doesn't matter how many places it's being discussed: A reader shouldn't have to read the talk page to use the MOS. Currently the template does not produce what it is shown to produce, and we do our readers a disservice by pretending it does. If you insist on removing it, we need to at least tag the claim as 'dubious' since it's false. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There was an edit war, that's what this and these [7], [8], [9], [10] were about. And it does matter if it's being discussed, because if it is then that's what you should be contributing to, not continually changing the project page. When you made this edit it would have been crystal clear to you that the edit was contentious and was currently being discussed as "There is currently a discussion underway as to whether the template should be modified to match the MOS or vice versa" which is what is written immediately after where you made your edit. So I again ask that you revert yourself so other actions aren't necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The MOS is written for everyone, not just those of us in the discussion. That's obvious, isn't it? We either need to change the template to match the MOS, change the MOS to match the template, or stop recommending the template. I don't know which it will be. But meanwhile we need to warn our editors that the formatting template recommended by the MOS does not produce the formatting recommended by the MOS. If you have a better way of doing that, knock yourself out, but other editors shouldn't suffer because of our petty disputes. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello Kwami,

Is it possible to nominate the Georgian alphabet for a good article? Can it become one now or what can be done to make the article a good article? Jaqeli (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you can nominate it, but for it to go anywhere it needs to be stable and with no on-going disputes. I'm not sure, but if the only problems are IP and single-purpose accounts, then we should be okay. — kwami (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know how that is done and can you help or maybe you could nominate? Is the article now in a good standing to be nominated for a good article? Jaqeli (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a horrible time getting rongorongo to FA, so I'm not anxious to get into this again. But once you nominate, people will review the article and tell you how it needs to be improved. Even if it fails, you still get some good feedback, and you can always try again. Just apply at WP:GA (after reading it!) and see what happens. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you think is it in a good enough shape to be good article-d? Jaqeli (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought rongorongo was good enough for FA, and there were all sorts of weird criticisms, so I have no idea. It depends on who responds to the nomination, not on anything objective. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, did I everything right? Can you please see it on the article's talk page? Jaqeli (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Where the box says "To start the review process, follow this link", click on that and continue. (You need to do it for it to be in your name.) — kwami (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Now? Should I write anything special there? Jaqeli (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now. Just follow the directions; I've never done this, and they've probably changed since I last filed for FA. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I shouldn't have done what you've said there :( Only reviewers should have had clicked on that and not me :( I received a message from myself on my talk page :( Jaqeli (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. As I've said, I've never done this. You can notify them on the GA page you think you've made a mistake, and they should take care of it. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I nominated it for the second time now but what would happen to that page I just mistakently created? :( Jaqeli (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, but now it's listed as the second GA nomination, suggesting that the first one failed. Probably best just to go to the GA talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it as it is now. Hope someone will review it soon. Jaqeli (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

tête

Do you think this is [tɛɪ̯t] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, further back than an [ɛ]. Sounds like peut-être above. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

key

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNNCRzT_9vE&feature=kp

This song is in F major ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because you don't know keys ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

pêche

Do you hear [paɛ̯ʃ] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks pretty close. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Indo-Pacific languages

Kwami, thank you for your edits to Indo-Pacific languages. You seem to be doing a good job of improving that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.48 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can ID any of the red links, please let me know! Most are from Ray (1929), and I can't find a review that ID's the languages in that survey.

— kwami (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jupiter T/trojan

There is a requested move going on there in which you may be interested. --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

tempête

This one is hard to know that it is [tãpɐɪ̯t] or [tãpɛɪ̯t]. 166.48.189.93 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To me it's clearly the former. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This one is [iveːχ] or [iveɪ̯χ] ? But it's certainly not [ivɛːχ]. 166.48.189.93 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't hear a diphthong, but it doesn't seem to be as high as [e] either. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Could it be [ive̞e̯χ]? --JorisvS (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IPA

There really has a diphthong in the last syllable ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Which word? The sound quality's pretty bad, though. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[kɛːs pɔpylaɪ̯ʁ] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No diphthong. The transition to the /r/ sounded a bit like a diphthong to me in one of the words above, but I decided it wasn't really part of the vowel. But here I don't even hear that. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Indus scripts date

• 3500 BCE - 3100 BCE[11]
• "A recent discovery of written characters belonging to the ravi phase has pushed back the date of the first Indus script to 3300 - 2800 BCE."[12]
• 3400 BCE - 3150 BCE[13]

Not all writings are 3300 BCE+ that's why we mentioned 3300 - 1900 in Infobox. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit. Right now I'm in the middle of things. But the sources we had in the article only justified a date of ca. 2600 BCE. There were earlier inscriptions, but the researchers could not tell if they were writing (they accept that the Indus script is writing). — kwami (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The BBC article quotes Meadows as saying that he wants to trace the inscriptions to see when they *became* writing. Higham does not provide a source. Without that, it's impossible to tell why he says what he does, but if I had to guess I'd say he's misunderstood Meadows' research, or maybe just read a newspaper account of it. The last source if for Sumerian, not Indus. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Third source is also about Indus, it reads "indus script would have appeared to have been formalized by the late fourth early third millenium BC." Bladesmulti (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

They're guessing when it might have started, based on its standardization according to a source from 1931. That's entirely different from being able to say that it actually existed then. It makes sense that Egypt, Sumeria, Iran, and India might have all had writing from a very early date, due to trade and other contact, but "might" doesn't mean "did". — kwami (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi kwami, is it possible in any way to edit this template? I think it would be better if we add little question mark at the end of the Georgian name (?) linking to the Georgian alphabet like it has in this template. Currently it is blocked and I am unable to edit it. Could you help somehow? Jaqeli (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't myself. You could suggest it on the talk page, or since that probably doesn't see much traffic, you could try WP:WRITING. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's one example. Just tell me what you think. It would be like this: Jaqeli (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wrote your name in Georgian :)

:) — kwami (talk)

• (Georgian: კვამი^[?])
• (Georgian: კვამი^?)

I like the second. I'm not sure it's needed, but it doesn't do any harm. One point to keep in mind, though: Georgian can be given in Latin transliteration, in which case the template might still be used but the note would be inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Those transliterations in Latin written inside the template are possibly a minority. I've posted the suggestion on the talk page of the template and in the WRITING wikiproject but no response yet. Is it okey to ask any administrator directly about it? Jaqeli (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Ask anyone you like. My comment was just a concern: Lang-ka is for the Georgian language, not any particular script, whereas the nihongo template is specifically for displaying and explaining Japanese script, not just the language. So I wouldn't expect their behaviour to be the same, and the link IMO should probably be optional.

Another possibility would be like the IPA template:

(Georgian: კვამი)

— kwami (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nooo, that's way too much linky. Thanks anyways. Jaqeli (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, please see the talk page of Template talk:Lang-ka. I am interested what would be your opinion. Jaqeli (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Spurious languages

Kwami, please see the issue I raised just now on Talk:Spurious_languages. AlbertBickford (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Typology

Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Talk:Sanskrit.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barefact (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

IPA

I transcribed [sœɡõdɐɛ̯ʁ̥] in Wiktionnaire. 166.48.189.93 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't hear that. More like a final [dæʁ̥]. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you hear [kʲanɐːʁ̥] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Monophthong, yes, but maybe closer to [ɑ]. I really need training with the standard cardinal vowels, though: I think I'm getting a lot of interference from the languages & dialects I'm familiar with. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the real [æ]. 166.48.189.93 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[kʲɛːs pɔpylɛːʁ̥] is impossible. [kʲɛːs pɔpylaːʁ̥] is it possible ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Either [a] or [ɑ]. Same V as your "kʲanɐːʁ̥" above. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[te̞ʁɛ̃] or [te̞ʁẽ] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The first. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This one is [ɚ̃ kʰi.lɔ.maɪ̯tʁ̥] or [ɚ̃ ci.lɔ.maɪ̯tʁ̥] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The latter is possible ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

un kilomètre

Do you hear [ɚ̃ cilɔmaɪ̯tχ] ? Do you know the [c] sound ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think so. It's hard to tell before [i]. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The word un is really pronounced [ɚ̃] ? Not [œ̃] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly [ə], but it does sound rhotic to me. Hard to hear over the nasalization, though. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The last vowel is [aɪ̯] ? 166.48.189.93 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty close. But now the first sounds like [œ]. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[œ̃] is a front vowel. I think that it's a rhotic [ɞ̃ɹ]. 166.48.189.93 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Could be. — kwami (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

View count

Hi kwami, is there any way I can see how many views did "X" article got? How can I do that? Jaqeli (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title= [title here] &action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers

There's probably a more intuitive way. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you might be looking for [14]. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There you go! Thanks, Vanisaac. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jaqeli (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gay Marriage in Mexico Map

Hi, a couple of days after the last change in your map was approved the civil unions in the state of Campeche. Time to do a new change in your map. Thanks. Hpav7 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Source? It's not mentioned at Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. — kwami (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Atauro

I don't know why either. I never intended to revert it. Probably a stray click trying to edit things on an iPad. My humble apologies. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it turns out it was problematic anyways. Trying to sort it out now. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Adabe/Bunak

Oh, by the way: I couldn't find any hint, Adabe is a Bunak dialect. There are several Papuan languages in East Timor. Non of these languages are close by geography to Adabe. There are some good scientific papers about Bunak and others, but non of them mention Adabe AFAIsee. Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Bunak
• 
  Adabe
• 
  Fataluku
• 
  Makalero
• 
  Makasae
• 
  Atauru

Bunak is close to Atauru (added), which is lumped in with Adabe. Not that that means much, but it would be consistent with them being a Bunak dialect. Hull supposedly explains all this, but I can't really see where. If Adabe and Atauru are the same thing, I can understand the mix-up with Atauro, but why was Adabe thought to be Papuan in the first place? It only makes sense if it's a variety of one of the Papuan languages, or for some reason got mixed up with one of them. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

diff

I don't understand your reason for this edit. In my experience, modern Esperanto doesn't usually put a hyphen between "tiun" and "ĉi". Why are you including one here? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. (That's how I learned it.) It might be old-fashioned, but it's not a difference between pra-Eo and Eo. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Section editing reflinks idea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Section editing reflinks idea. This is an idea that I think may interest you and would love to hear your feedback on. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sal

• [Sal]

Do you hear [sa:ɫ] with "dark L"? Thanks. --Mirandolese (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think so. There seems to be some sort of back transition, even though the [a] is very front. — kwami (talk)

I hear [saːl] with a clear /l/. 166.48.192.136 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hello Sir, Thanks for the edit.I do remember about a similar edit in some other wiki page. I would like to place the fact that the word "oriya" has been amended by the 113th amendment bill to Indian constitution, having been passed in both the houses on 6.9.11 . Then, shall it be proper to still continue with "Oriya" in stead of "Odia". with regards; Hpsatapathy (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Legislation does not dictate language. We follow common English usage, which is Oriya. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

treize

This pronunciation is [tχaɪ̯zə] ? 166.48.192.136 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The vowel seems right, but the /r/ sounds more rhotic. Maybe a trill? — kwami (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear frication, maybe a fricative trill? --JorisvS (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sepik languages map

The map is incomplete in the sense some groups are absent in te map. It is based on this map WALS of location for some Sepik languages. I have addedd labels in the map here. --Davius (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's what 'incomplete' means! You can't use it as a map of the Sepik languages if it's only some of them. That map would only be good for an article on Sepik languages included in the WALS db, which would not be notable enough for WP. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the map contains all "core Sepik" languages (only dubious groups such as Walio and Biksi are absent). --Davius (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It doesn't include most of the Ndu languages, does it? — kwami (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It includes Ndu languages, because Ndu languages are a group of Middle Sepik languages (group 1 in the map), --Davius (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't include Ambulas, or Sos Kundi, or Koiwat, all of which are Ndu languages. It's missing many other Sepik languages as well. Again, "some languages" isn't a language family. If you want to map a family, you need to include the languages that are in that family. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hindi

Hello Kwamikagami. You removed File:Countries where Hindi is spoken.png article Hindi stating it useless. Why it is useless?--Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First, it's wrong: Hindi is not the majority language of Nepal, or for that matter of India. It's also an apparently random collection of countries. Why is Australia a Hindi-speaking country, but not Botswana or Germany or or Guyana or Bhutan? Why not just color the whole world orange? Does "Hindi-speaking" just mean there are Indian immigrants (which there are all over the world), or should it mean an established community where the language has been passed down for generations? — kwami (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Quebec accent

[ɑ̃kɛɪ̯t], right ? 166.48.193.31 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks about right. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The diphthong is clear ? 166.48.176.53 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Campeche Civil Unions

Here's the link to the news site that states the regional parliament unanimously passed civil unions in December 2013. http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2013/12/23/legalizan-bodas-gays-en-campeche Btw, I wouldn't just change something if I didn't have a source. Just for future reference; I know there are some who do, I can assure I am not one of those people. Also, the source was on same-sex union legislation, and LGBT rights in Mexico. Chase1493 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Usually when someone changes a map like that, I check the article to see if it's supported. In this case there was nothing in the article. Could you write something up there with your sources? — kwami (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, you have a new talk page

-- here (not my doing!). On which, see the history, this and this. I see from the article's talk page that you're already familiar with (and I'd guess weary of) the article. Putting aside the (non-) question of "language" versus "dialect", it took me only a very few minutes to see that some earlier editor(s) of the article misrepresented the one spelling of the name as the other; I only looked within the list of "Further reading", and if I had more time and energy to devote to this, I might well find more of the same. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC) ....

PS (1) The misrepresentation of book titles seems to date from the addition of these titles on 22 April 2012. (2) Do you see any reason to take seriously a distinction between "dialect" and "language"? I don't; but I suppose that as long as the article conspicuously says it's the one or the other the proponents of the alternative are going to jump up and down and shriek in indignation. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a dialect continuum, so the boundaries are going to be somewhat arbitrary. But for some odd reason, the dialectological work necessary to minimize the arbitrariness doesn't seem to have been done in India, and right now this seems to be a particular problem with greater Punjabi. I have come across apparently RSs that treat Saraiki as a language, though most seem not to. I could care less, personally, I just revert people because the argument seems to have more to do with politics than with language, and because it's being argued through ranting and edit warring rather than sourcing and serious discussion. It's currently at "dialect" because last time there was a real discussion, those advocating that side were more reasonable and better sourced, but that could change, and I'd have no objection if it did. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no background in dialectology or sociolinguistics, and cannot understand (any variety of) "Swiss German", (any but a few words of) standard German, or Czech, or Slovak(ian). But I believe that Swiss German is virtually incomprehensible to somebody who only knows standard German but yet the former is routinely called a dialect of the latter; whereas standard Czech and standard Slovak(ian) are mutually intelligible yet routinely called separate languages. All of this (complete with glaring misunderstandings, perhaps) makes it hard for me to take seriously arguments over whether something is a dialect or a (separate) language, at least until people cite not just authorities but also the reasoning presented by those authorities. OTOH I realize that it's easy for a more or less monoglot L1 speaker of English to belittle the issues triggering all the excitement: the status of English will be unassailable for at least a century (granted that we're not destroyed by a doomsday weapon, giant meteorite, etc); whereas the (non) distinction between language and dialect is taken seriously by legislators; and, however unjust this may be, budgets, rights and so forth may depend on the decision.

But whatever the distinction means (if anything), the article does claim that this or that authority says that this is a dialect or instead that it's a language. Most of these sources are not online. Now that I've noticed that one vigorous contributor to the article misspelled the titles of additional "further reading" so that they'd all read "Saraiki", I don't trust the use made in the article of any source. An editor in good standing should check that every cited source actually says what it's touted as saying. But my own library will have none of this stuff so I can't check for myself. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"A language is a dialect with an army and a navy". Sure. We do try to do a little better than than on WP. Swiss in not a language because there is no unity to it; people from one part of Switzerland cannot understand those from another, whereas they can understand people in neighboring areas of Germany. But we do say that Alemannic is a "group of dialects", leaving open the question of where one should draw the line between language and dialect. And we don't count them in the number of German speakers, so implying that Swiss German lects are not "German". On the other hand, I've seen Croats and Russians converse in Czechia, when neither had studied the other's language. So yeah, to some extent a lect is a language because it's speakers think of it as one, or have developed it as one, and Saraiki is heading in that direction. Whether it will ever get there, or already has gotten there, is something I'm not able to answer. You get the opposite too, of course, where a language isolate is relegated to dialect status under a culturally dominant language, and that's a much more serious situation than whether we divide Romance into 12 languages or 25 or 50. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. Yes, standard German is the preferred lingua franca among diverse speakers of Swiss German, and there's a sensible reason quite separate from any desire to appear cosmopolitan. ¶ I'll try to return to the article and its talk page when I have time. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An article such as this exerts a terrible fascination for me. A book from the 1880s is presented as a source for the situation today. None of three straightforward references to Ethnologue actually says what it's claimed to say. Two references share the same "name" (in Mediawiki markup terms); one turns out not to say what it's claimed to say (and indeed nothing like it), the other is so very obviously worthless (poorly written, anonymous article by some pressure group, posted on a free hosting service) that one shouldn't care what it says. Et cetera. Well, I really do have WP-irrelevant affairs to attend to so I must take a break. Please don't assume that I've checked and verified the references I've left in: on the contrary, I've only looked at two or three of them, and expect that a lot of crap references remain. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Apropos of the Question that Never Was: they're references for anything. The printed references may be good, for all I know, but the web "references" I've seen so far have largely been non-references. And the printed references include one (which I'm about to zap) from "Betascript, so I'm doubtful about them too. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Navarro-Labourdin dialect

I raised two questions in Talk:Navarro-Lapurdian dialect about one of your edits [15]. Might you check them? Thanks --Javierme (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Doteli

There is mention of a language called "Doteli" at Nepal#Languages spoken by a few percent of the population, but Doteli language is a redlink. Can you identify it? --JorisvS (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Glottolog, it's just one of several dialects of Nepali. Looks like it's Dotyali [dty].[16] — kwami (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Akans

You may remember that I deleted this a while back as a result of MarkMysoe's nonsense. A new list has appeared at List of Akan people, while nothing looks untoward at first glance it might need closer attention. The user who created it also immediately made a couple of templates and categories, which reminds me of someone. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

PUA

Only one PUA in this month's dump and the article will be deleted shortly via AfD. Sorry for the lack of articles with fun-filled PUAs. Bgwhite (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Such a disappointment. I might have to get a life to fill the time. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Languages of Africa

Hi Kwami, recently you made a change on that page, stating This accepted by hardly any linguists. I guess you missed the auxiliary was, but since I'm not entirely sure of your intentions, I better just make you aware of this, so you can fix it yourself. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, badly written. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

ヰキプロジェクト琉球

はいさい, Kwamikagami! I've noticed that you've contributed to the subject of Ryukyu. I invite you to join WikiProject Ryūkyū, AKA the Ryukyu task force, a collaborative effort to expand and deepen coverage of subjects pertaining to Ryukyuan geography, history, and culture. Here are a few links to pages to start you off:

• See the main project page
• Sign the participants page
• See the To Do List
• If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the talk page

I hope you'll take interest and decide to be a part of this project. めんそーれ! ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

los diacríticos en español

Hello, Kwami, thanks. The "Zapotec-Mapotec" language names are town-village origin (mostly). The non-common (for English) town-village names are written original orthography (with diacritics). [True or False? I don't know]. Thanks. --Kmoksy (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your page. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Remove it if you like. Thanks. --Kmoksy (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me either way. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User Raayen

User Raayen constantly adds the Elamites to Iranian peoples although my explanations to revert it. I said to him that Elamites speak a language isolate probably related to Dravidian that has nothing to do with Indo-European-and thus Iranian- and Semitic languages. If he continue to edit-war, could you look at the article? Lamedumal (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with the article: Can you really not be Iranian if you don't speak an Iranian language? but I'll keep an eye on it. — kwami (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Elamites are distinc people and never known as Semitic or Indo-European. It is clear. Iranian is not a geographical term, it refers to being "Iranic". That user is a POV-pusher, you can see it with looking at his edits.Lamedumal (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying there are other problems with the article, as there often are when language is used to define ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...I have opened a section in the talk page to discuss it as you know. Thanks for your interest... Lamedumal (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ancêtre

This pronunciation is [ɑ̃sɐɪ̯tχ] or [ɒ̃sɐɪ̯tχ] ? The first syllable is [ɑ̃] or [ɒ̃] ? 198.99.28.211 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know, because the recording is not clear. 162.222.80.37 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the first? I don't have [ɒ] in my dialect, though.

Also, is there any way to control the volume in these things? Why have volume control if it resets before it plays? — kwami (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You must control the volume in Audacity and upload it in Wikimedia Commons. 162.222.80.37 (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. The file is already uploaded at Commons. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone can modify it and upload a new file. 162.222.80.37 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My question is why we have an icon for volume control when there's no volume control. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth... the volume control works for me (a passing commenter). I'm using latest Firefox. -92.6.197.171 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So am I. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Jupiter trojan categories

In response to the result of the Requested move at Talk:Jupiter Trojan, Headbomb has started a move request to have the categories moved to his preferred location: Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Current nominations. --JorisvS (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikiindaba:A convocation of African Wikipedians

Hi Kwami. We are planning the first African conference for Wikipedians in South Africa later this year. I would like to know if you are interested in attending and/know of more Nigerian Wikipedians who would love to attend, we will soon opening scholarship application process and I am confident that you meet the activity criteria. Please see our off wiki conference page here.--Thuvack | ^talk 14:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for English pronunciation of Greek letters

An article that you have been involved in editing, English pronunciation of Greek letters, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. אפונה (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

PUA requested move

Hi Kwami. The following discussion might be of interest to you: Talk:Private Use Areas#Requested move. No such user (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Map accuracy issues

You may be interested in the following: A new map of atheist discrimination was recently added to the top of Discrimination against atheists. I started a discussion on commons:File talk:Discrimination against atheists by country.svg concerning accuracy of the map concerning discrimination against atheists. Jim1138 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple postings at RMs, please link to previous discussion

Hi.

(1) The other user having taken the trouble to make individual proposals these mass-produced oppose cut and pastes do not encourage support for your view. But anyway can you please link "there was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't." so other users can see it.

(2) Also in articles where the RM is proposing reverting an undiscussed move you made please explain the rationale for your move, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicating the discussion on hundreds of articles is disruptive. No-one should be expected to respond to each individually. My "view" was just that: Don't be disruptive. Centralize the discussion, and only have a separate discussion for a different discussion.

That was years ago. I have no idea where the archives would be. Wherever it was, it's been in our guidelines for years now. I have no problem with changing that, BTW, and whatever the arguments were back then might not be particularly relevant anymore anyway. — kwami (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, on (1) I'm afraid that if you cannot find and link to the claimed guideline I will feel bound in good conscience to support all the RMs where I have not commented, where I was previously neutral and only opposed the six or seven which were clear WP:DAB issues. Also on (2) where a RM has taken place relating to a previous undiscussed move I believe an editor having made the previous move is obliged to explain it if he or she participates in the RM. This is normal collegiate practice.

(3) parallel to the above, there is now a central place where you both can discuss, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The concensus is in the guidelines. That's what you should be looking at. As for my moves (years ago, BTW), they followed our guidelines, as has already been pointed out by other editors. If Skookum or anyone else wants to change the guidelines, the responsible way to do that is by starting a discussion on changing the guidelines, not by trying to subvert them article by article. — kwami (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please confirm to me here what action I requested from you in (1), just so we both know we are on the same page. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You wanted me to not answer a mass proposal with a mass response, and to link you to the discussion that produced the current naming guideline. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not it at all, in (1) I requested you to "...please link "there was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't." so other users can see it." unquote.

That is asking you to go back to the text in your 20x cut and paste comments between the quotation marks "there was a discussion ... and it was decided it shouldn't." and wikt:link in/by/on/near the text "there was a discussion ... decided it shouldn't." so that other users can see "it"; "it" being the discussion, as in "there was a discussion ... decided it shouldn't." to which you are referring.

It's in your own interest to do this, as well as all other editors'. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, that was many years ago, and I don't know where it is. But since it's reflected in our guidelines, and those have had consensus for years, that should be good enough. — kwami (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Hindian"

Kwami, what is a "Hindian"? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an ad hoc substitute for Asian Indian, since "Indian" could be misread in a First Nations context. — kwami (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not though is it. Either you don't know how "Hindian" is used (cf Christophe Jaffrelot Hindu Nationalism: A Reader 1400828031 2009 Page 18 "Madhok's views echoed those of Savarkar and Golwalkar inasmuch he exhorted minorities to 'Indianize'—meaning they should adopt Hindu cultural features and assimilate into a 'Hindian' nation.35 ", or you know how it is used. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I don't follow what you're saying. Yes, either I know how it's used or I don't – that's true of everything, isn't it? But it is an ad hoc dab for "Indian", and not an uncommon one. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So you do know and use it in the sense Fox apparently acredits it to Madhok. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that. No, I don't use it in a Hindu-nationalist sense, just as a conversational dab for "Indian". — kwami (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Q re your edits to cogito ergo sum article

Thank you for your edits. Re the 'i' and 'u' pronunciation, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA on that point. Would you care to join? humanengr (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"glotto" attribute

Hi Kwami. When you add the "glotto" attribute to language articles, would you mind checking to see if you need to add a ref list as well? Since that attribute contains a ref in at least some case (like here and here), adding it without also adding a reflist causes the article to throw a ref error (as, for example, Betoi language is currently doing). It's a matter of a few seconds to toss in the reflist, but it's easier if you do it when you add the attribute rather than someone else having to spot the error and fix it later. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just leave it. A bot will come along and fix it soon enough. — kwami (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing: the bot can't fix all types of ref errors, which means humans still have to go through the category and still have to evaluate the errors you're introducing. To know whether a ref error is bot-fixable or not, we have to look at the error. If it is, then yes, we can just leave it for the bot (which doesn't run constantly) - but we've then already had to waste the time to opening, loading, and evaluating the page to see if the error needs to be hand-fixed. It's much kinder to those of us who spend time fixing the non-bot-fixable errors if you don't clutter the category with errors you know you're causing because you assume that there is no human time investment in fixing ref errors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It was no trouble. — bot (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talysh language

If you have time, would you look at the latest edits to Talysh language? While I cannot judge the correctness of the edits, I feel that some changes to the format are questionable. Specifically, one chart fills the entire page from left margin to right margin. Another has a column (for Kurdish) whose cells are filled with a bluish-gray that is too dark (and I don't know why the column for Kurdish words should be so distinctive). I believe you have an interest in linguistics, and perhaps you already have this article on your watch list, but in case you don't, I thought I'd ask you to review the edits. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted. I don't see how it adds anything. Beside the formatting probs, are we going to start adding every language we support, like in Indian articles? And if Kurdish were appropriate, which Kurdish? — kwami (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. I agree with you. Would you mind if I mention a few other minor formatting issues that I see with the article? I don't know how to fix formatting, especially of tables.

• In two tables, "Some Northern dialects' differences" and the sub-section "Case markers and prepositions" in the section "Conjugations," the English equivalent/translation is given in one column at the far right of each table. That column is separated by a bluish-gray bar from the other columns. Is there any way to make that bar a little thinner? It appears quite thick/wide on my screen and I find it distracting. And is that bar even necessary? Look at the section "Differences from Persian". The column at the far right is headed "Translation". It gives the English translation, and that column is not separated by any special vertical bar from the rest of the table.

• I think the table headed "Consonants" is too spread out left-to-right. Isn't there any way to tighten up the columns (and make the table a little narrower) so that the material in the columns is not so spread out?

• In the table headed "Vocabulary", the column that is second from the left is blank and filled with a dark bluish-gray background. I don't think the column needs to be there. (This might be the column that had the Kurdish in it.)

Well, that's all. (Sorry to bother you again.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone put a lot of time into making things look nice, and I don't want to remove their formatting unless I'm willing to take the time to replace it w s.t. just as nice, which I'm not. If it really bothers you, it's a good opportunity for you to learn how tables work! Help:Table will give you a start. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Linglist

Why did you rm the linglist codes from Greek dialect articles? — Lfdder (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Because we have real refs now. Linglist was used out of desperation. — kwami (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still useful for browsing trees (of varying accuracy) and it's sometimes got relevant refs not in the articles. — Lfdder (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There should be better at Glottolog. The problem with using LingList is that we imply to our readers that it's credible. — kwami (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nǁng

I was wondering how Nǁng should be pronounced? --JorisvS (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't thing there is any English pronunciation. AFAIK it hasn't been anglicized. The article gives IPA and some idea of how that's pronounced. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, found it. The Nǁ + ng had me wondering, but it's a syllabic nasal. --JorisvS (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could make it more easily found, but it's not going to be easy for most people anyway. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comox people move

Please see Talk:Comox people#Moving this article

Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually agree with the last comment he made on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Well, that's good to hear. So do you both agree on the name now? If so, why not just make a simple page move talk section with something like "It is proposed that the page be moved to....objections?" and if nobody objects, just move it in a week or two? Case closed. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the existing name, so I would oppose a move. Skookum's last comment was that we should not move the page. — kwami (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's good news. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

that's not what I said at all....more misrepresentation; there is no collective native endonym for both groups, and even among the Island group there were several subdivisions, and the four among the Mainland; the title should be Comox peoples if anything; this is not one people. Same applies with Saanich and Tlingit and various others; Saanich is on its way to being a town standalone as the municipality is far and away the primary topic; the solution to Tlingit is to strip any dab off it, as it's a unique name.Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You said, "I see no reason to depart from the most common English form, which is Comox." That was in your last comment on the page. The entire thing was,

As "Comox/Komox" is not the indigenous name for this people, or their language, I see no reason to depart from the most common English form, which is Comox. "K'omoks" and "Komox" "K'omoks", with or without accent marks, is a Kwak'wala word - /q'ómoxws/ - so rendering the name in that language would be like titling the Nooksack (tribe) article with the Halkomelem name for the Nooksack, instead of their own. This is an English encyclopedia, not a Kwak'wala one.

You appear to be desperate to prove that anyone who disagrees with you is either dishonest or stupid, but how can you possibly say that I misrepresented you? — kwami (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

further edits to cogito ergo sum

Following up on the 'u' in 'sum'. I had posted on this on Refdesk (in response to one of your posts), and followed up with Lfdder. His suggestion was to include both 'ʊ' and 'ʌ" alternatives. Are you ok with that? I started a discussion on the cogito talk page -- so if you'd care to respond there. Thanks for your help. humanengr (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

World marriage equality laws map: Australia

Hi, with respect to your world marriage equality laws, I was wondering if you might be able to shade the Australian States of South Australia and Queensland to the light blue for 'civil unions'. I ask because 1) I'm not sure how to edit the map myself and 2) because the next lowest colour is for jurisdictions with 'Unregistered cohabitation', something which arguably only the Northern Territory and Western Australia have under their respective state/Territory laws. For what it's worth, SA and QLD don't really have 'civil unions' in the sense of a state-sanctioned ceremony, rather they have registered domestic partnerships. Regards. Jono52795 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed you've done it. Appreciate the quick response. Thanks! Jono52795 (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Pali

Just wondering if you would take a look at the latest edits to Pali. I cannot judge the content, but I have questions about the way it is expressed, particularly this clause:

"with whom it shares some linguistic familiarities".

1) Because it is not a person, it should be "with which", not "with whom"; I would have corrected it myself, but I thought I'd ask you to review the entire paragraph first; and

2) shouldn't it be "similarities", not "familiarities"? I've never heard that before, two languages sharing familiarities. -- CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct and correct.

I'm not familiar with the content either, but nothing of substance in that section jumps out as obviously wrong. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Telugu language article

Hi, I would like to know why you undid the content added by me which has few historical quotes on Telugu. All the people who made quotes are historically significant figures in Dravidian studies. I am adding them again with valid reference. Please mention if any kind of objections you want to present. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It was just an attempt to prove that Telugu is a better language than Tamil. We have this stupid nationalistic war going on about which language is better. The answer: neither, and I will revert all attempts to support one at the expense of the other. Besides being unencyclopedic, it bespeaks a certain insecurity in the people making the claims. (Usually it surfaces as an insistence on putting Tamil first, even when we're listing languages by population.) — kwami (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Tifinagh

Hello. I just noticed an edit to the article on Tifinagh in which an editor changed the transliteration conventions. What do you suggest? --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No source, gets reverted. — kwami (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sino-Tibetan

Instead of trying to force your change in through edit warring, please discuss at the talk page. Kanguole 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Bura Sign Language

Please do not edit war. Discuss tags on the talk page when there is disagreement. You removed a refimprove tag on the grounds that a stub only needs one reference. Maybe, maybe not. I noted on the talk page that the one reference appeared to be a manuscript which had not been published, and did not appear to be a reliable source as such, so I tagged the article as having a source which did not satisfy WP:RS. You then removed the tag for the article having a unreliable source with the comment "It's fine." It nay be "fine," but how is it a reliable source? An article cannot go on indefinitely referenced only by some person's manuscript. Please re-read WP:RS and particularly WP:SPS. Hasn't anyone published anything about this sign language used in one village? It really needs multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources if it is to be considered notable. Edison (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that one source is all there is, though it may have appeared more than once. Mentions of Bura SL in the lit all cite Blench. He's also a reputable author; per the guidelines you cited, it's acceptable to cite self-publications by reputable people when nothing better is available. I probably wouldn't accept the ms for claims as to the theoretical implications of Bura SL, but it's fine for demonstrating that it exists.

And no, that's not how our notability guidelines work. Natural languages are inherently notable. (We do apply your criterion to conglangs, since personal projects are not notable.) — kwami (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What guideline grants "inherent notability" to every village's sign language? Edison (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You stated that the manuscript author was reputable; has he published on the topic in RS? That would strengthen your argument. Edison (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see from Google scholar that he has published on linguistics, but how about on sign language as such? Edison (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

He's an Africanist, of oral languages, but the 2nd author / peer reviewer specializes in W African SLs. Other RSs have accepted his ms as sufficient evidence for the existence of Bura SL. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tracking bogus parameters

as you requested, I created Module:Check for unknown parameters. you simply add to any template code, as

{{#invoke:check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=[[Category:Some tracking category]]
|arg1|arg2|...|argN}}

where 'Some tracking category' is the tracking category to use, and arg1, arg2, ..., argN are all the valid parameters. note that this does require listing out all the known parameters, which could be tedious. it will also, currently, view blank parameters the same as non-blank. it has also not been rigorously tested, but you can play around with it in User:Frietjes/Example, User:Frietjes/Example1, and User:Frietjes/Example2. yes, feel free to actually edit those pages to expose any bugs or other issues. you will see there is a '_VALUE_' in the tracking category. by default, _VALUE_ is replaced by the name of the bogus parameter, so the entries in the tracking category are indexed by the parameter name (useful for finding the particular bogus parameter in a sea of other parameters). you could also change the |unknown= to something else, like unknown = {{error|Found _VALUE_}} for a more obvious error message. let me know if you find any bugs or have any suggested improvements. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That's fantastic. So you just tag in on to the closing brackets of the template? We should make that available somewhere. Maybe mention it on the template help page? — kwami (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the module seems to work, and I work with these articles so much, and will hopefully notice any problems, I think the best way to find bugs is to try it out. Just on the language box for now; will apply to the family box later. I assume the category will take a couple weeks to populate? Though from now on any additional errors should pop up when the article is saved. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note: I recently started tracking two templates (not with this module), 10,000 tranc's each, and the category filled stable within days not weeks. Nice job by Frietjes! -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This one has started filling up, but I have no idea how far along it is. A lot of misspellings in the field names. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing new since yesterday, so it looks like it only takes a day. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on language pages

Hi Kwami. Some of your recent edits to various pages on languages adding the Glottolog citation have resulted in reference errors that have been filling up Category:Pages with missing references list. I've added the reflist template to about fifteen of these, but I'd appreciate your help fixing the rest. Altamel (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother. A bot will clean it up. It takes longer now that our most prolific bot operator's been banned, but it will happen. — kwami (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Who do you mean? — Lfdder (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When you place a reference in an article and there is no template to display it, there is at least one patrol bot that will add a reference section. It might take a couple days, since the really active bot that used to handle this within minutes to hours has been shut down, but since I've done this hundreds of times over the last couple days, I'll wait for the bot. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean, who's been banned? — Lfdder (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough. And his ban just lifted. Maybe he'll be back. — kwami (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I never quite made it to a "ban" technically, merely a years block for a single character typo! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Do you now know not to make typos? — Lfdder (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Bura Sign Language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bura Sign Language 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/Bura Sign 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edison (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Flags in List of languages by number of native speakers

Is it necessary to remove the flags in the List of languages by number of native speakers? The use of flags should be allowed in the article. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Flags mean the languages are official – see MOS:FLAG. If you want to remove all the countries where the languages are not official, we can restore the flags, but that wouldn't be very helpful. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not stated in the MOS that the use of flags is only allowed for countries where the language is official. It is best to leave the flags as it is. Besides, the section states "Mainly spoken in" and not official languages. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Read it again. This is just the kind of decorative usage that is discouraged. — kwami (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2014

Nonetheless, it is relevant and accepted. The usage of the flags should be allowed since it clearly represents the countries the language is spoken in. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. In our language articles, we only use flags for countries where a language is official, not where it's spoken. Take it up on the talk page there if you like. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Chatino village sign language

Kwami, I know we both want Wikipedia to work well. I'm not sure how to handle our different approaches to mentioning Chatino village sign language. Your explanation of your last revert mentioned not deleting a link, but that was the result. Should we wait for a more thorough source to be published, or should we use the current preliminary source? Pete unseth (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I created an article (stub), Chatino Sign Language, and cited your reference there. We've only ever had refs in the list when there was no article to demonstrate the language existed. When you reverted me, you also orphaned the article. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful that you created the new article! I had not realized that, so responded out of ignorance. Happy to let your reverts stand!Pete unseth (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this edit correct?

I guess it's just a personal analysis. Please see: diff. --Zyma (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The article states that they're "tribes", plural, so I'd guess not. Whether they're ethnic Turkmen I don't know. The articles need to be merged anyway. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted and redirected the newer article, since it was unsourced, and moved and copy-edited the remaining one. Confusion over what a "tribe" is, though I don't know the situation with the Avshar. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pluto

"... pretty sure ..."?! Pretty sure isn't good enough. Weren't Aristotle and Plato "pretty sure" that the Earth was the center of the universe?. Go look up how many 19th century astronomers were "pretty sure" that the Solar System had another Jupiter-sized planet that was pulling Uranus and Neptune out of their orbits. This is now taught in astronomy classes as a pinnacle of bad science. None of you three have claimed that adding the word "known" is inaccurate. None of you three have complied with my request for some proof that 100% of the Kuiper Belt has been surveyed, thus making your absolute edit accurate. You have given no rationale for this. It's just six bytes, that definitely improves the article. So why are you guys doing this?

I'm required to discuss this with before I list this on the Administrators' noticeboard. So I'm discussing. But listing is my next step. Some day I will find people in Wikipedia who understand the difference between an accurate statement and "pretty sure", and this will be reversed. Will102 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. We report best knowledge of a subject. We'll often be wrong, but that's how the green cheese crumbles. — kwami (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pitch accent in Spanish?

See [17]. Seems very dubious to me, do you know if there's any truth to it? @Srtª PiriLimPomPom: you might be interested. — Lfdder (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing. In any case, there's no need for it in the SC article, so I'd just delete it. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Pitch accent" can be prevalent in Amerindian-influenced Portuguese and thus presumably Amerindian-influenced Spanish indeed, but it would never form minimal pairs in the language that is supposed to be left as written register (maybe a few would be eventual exceptions, such as militar as verb versus militar as noun, but I doubt it), so it'd be just a minor phonological detail, totally unlike Serbo-Croat and Swedish. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Progetto:Cultura sorda

hi, I'm Deaf sicilian and italian. I invite you on his project in WP Italian. good morning, wiki friend :) --SurdusVII (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but my Italian is non-existent! — kwami (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Article CSDs

Hello. I'm messaging about the articles Remo language (Peru), Kukuini, Cucuini language, Cucuini, Sacuya language, and Sacuya. I see that you have blanked all the articles with a CSD. I have restored all the redirects for now because I'm not really sure what the reason is. If you believe that the redirects should be deleted, then may I suggest WP:RFD? If you believe that the redirects should be nominated under CSD, please choose one of the tags for deletion. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. KJ ^{click here} 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm putting them down for A1. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that WP:A1 apply to redirects. Could you please tell me why you are attempting to nominate them for deletion? Also, please don't blank the articles while nominating the articles for deletion. KJ ^{click here} 11:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no place to direct them to, and no incoming links. We could just leave them as blank pages, I suppose. — kwami (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, why don't we nominate them under WP:RFD? KJ ^{click here} 11:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it will take a month and they're not worth the effort. In the meantime I'll redirect them so I don't have to keep track of them. — kwami (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Maza, Mango, Muangphe

Check your e-mail, thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Rings of Chariklo

I've expanded the article a bit with the mentioning of the telescopes and observatories involved in the observation. I also added some info on the number of people and countries which took part in the research. It might be worth mentioning them on the Lead as well ! Regards, Krenakarore ^TK 23:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! IMO that seems like a lot of detail for the lead, though. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Just the mentioning of a few names, countries and the most important telescopes. That would lead the article for Peer Review ! Krenakarore ^TK 00:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. You're looking at it from a different POV than me, which is a good thing. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Date, Hokkaido

Hi, why did you remove the re-spell from the article Date, Hokkaido in October? I'd have thought it was really important, someone who didn't speak Japanese would easily pronounce it in the same way as the "went out on a date" date. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Because respelling only works for English. When we allow it for other languages, we get all kinds of garbage. It' fine though to say it's pronounced with two syllables, maybe with a note saying "approximately as DAH-TAY", but it's wrong to say it's actually pronounced as English "DAH-TEY". — kwami (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How is that? --Prosperosity (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a place for Wikipedia in Africa?

As an active editor on Wikipedia, Wikimedia South Africa has pleasure in inviting you to Wiki Indaba 2014 which will be held in Johannesburg from 20 – 22 June 2014.

This conference will be a gathering of African Wikimedians and other open knowledge volunteers who are aligned to the mission of Wikipedia. It is also the first step towards the establishment of African co-operative structures and organs that make up Wikimedia Chapters, Wikimedians and mission aligned Thematic Organisations.

For more information or to apply for a scholarship, please visit link WikiIndaba 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humetheresa (talk • contribs) 10:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)