User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 22

tempête

You hear [tãpɛt] or [tãpaɪ̯t] ? 198.105.97.92 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely the latter. Interesting accent. If you have an uncompressed file I could check if there's movement in the vowel formants. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is a Quebec accent. The word fête is pronounced "fight" in Quebec French. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo 198.105.97.92 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Schematic single bond minus

In this edit of double bond you commented "<!--Use &minus;, not &ndash;, for a schematic single bond-->". Do you have a source for this, or did you make it up? —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's what works. A minus matches the width of the double and triple bonds, whereas an en dash does not. Sources use the same width for all bonds. There may be another, less common Unicode character that would also work (perhaps Unicode characters specifically for chemical bonds?), but I'm not aware of one. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

hiver

You hear [ivɛːʁ] or [ivaɛ̯ʁ] ? 198.105.114.83 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound much like a diphthong to me, or at least I'm having a hard time distinguishing the glide from the R. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You hear [ivæːʁ] ? 198.105.114.83 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd need to compare the vowel to s.t. w/o an R after it. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

tard

You hear [tɒːʁ] or [tɑɔ̯ʁ] ? 198.105.114.83 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear something like [tao̯]. My ears aren't attuned to Quebequois. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kwoma Language Article

Hello Administrator Kwamikagami,

I happen to see your revert/undo on my edit (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kwoma_language&oldid=562795842&diff=prev). I certainly respect your decision; I am not clear as to why it was deleted, if you could please explain that to me. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was referenced to Ethnologue. I made that more explicit in my subsequent edit. — kwami (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

caisse

You hear [kɛːs] or [kaɪ̯s] ? 198.105.121.124 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

[keːs] or maybe [keɪ̯s]. If there's movement in the vowel, it's slight. (And I do mean [e], and [a] above, not [ɛ] and [ɑ].) — kwami (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Threat on my talk page

Hi Kwami!

Due to a recent revert on Mongolian language that I made, Orgio89 has made the following edit on my talk page:

Chi yahlaaraa Mongol helnii huudsiig hyatad hanzaar bohirlood dairaad baigaa yum be! Chi germand torj osson hari evrop setgelgeetei novsh baina. Mongold baigaa irged Mongol helniihee huudsiig oorsdoo zasaad medeed hiij baina Mongoliig hel soyld bitgii gai bolood baigaarai. Bolohgui bol evropt baigaa Mongolchuudaar chamtai tootsoo bodoj chadna shuu!!!

The text reads in translation:

'How can you / dare you pollute the page on the Mongolian language with Chinese characters? You are a German-born, foreign-thinking piece of garbage. The Mongolian citizens take responsibility for the page on their Mongolian language themselves. Stop being an obstacle / pain in the ass to Mongolian culture. If you don’t, I can contact Mongolians in Europe and make you pay!'

The crucial last sentence can be glossed as follows:

“Bolo-h=gui bol evrop-t bai-gaa Mongol-chuud-aar cham-tai tootsoo bodo-j chad-na shuu!“ (become-fut.ptcp=neg if Europe-dat cop-ipfv Mongolian-pl-ins 2sg-com bill think/calculate-cvb can-fut/gen illocutionary_particle(“I tell you”))

While I don't think that this threat is concrete or that this user could identify me, this is the first threat of violence that I have experienced on Wikipedia. As I am fairly sure that Orgio89 wouldn't be impressed by any form of polite answer (in contrast maybe to Ancientsteppe where a similar angry argument without threat started on my talk page, but became somewhat more peaceful in the course), maybe some kind of administrative intervention / block would be appropriate. I don't know which of the many noticeboards is applicable here, so I am pasting this to your talkpage. You may forward it to some other place if you see it fit to do so. Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Best if it comes from you. The place to report general problems like this is the admin noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — kwami (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

brun

You hear [bʁɚ̃] or [bʀɚ̃] ? 198.105.121.124 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely the latter. The trill is obvious. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion possibly needed

As a linguist, you might wish to chime in either here or on the related talk pages. It might help diffuse the situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an example of a factual dispute? It looks more like a matter of opinion over whether Chinese sources should be provided for loans. (I also know next to nothing about Mongol.) — kwami (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually involved in it. I just happened to see it while reading through some other ANIs, but it looks like some nationalistic China vs Mongolia POV pushing, but I may be wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

lézard

You hear [lezɑːχ] or [lezɒːχ] ? 198.105.97.122 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds unrounded to me. Video might help. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

tempest

You hear [ˈtɛmpɪst] or [ˈtɛmpɛst] ? 198.105.97.122 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

[ˈtɛmpɛst] is a wrong pronunciation ? 198.105.97.122 (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's wrong; it's a spelling pronunciation. Probably no-one would pronounce it that way if it weren't spelled like that. — kwami (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex Marriage: Colima, Mexico

We now have several citations that civil unions for same sex couples was passed yesterday, July 4th, in Colima, Mexico. Nothing has been adjusted. What is your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenrhart (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 July 2013

Since all of Mexico recognizes marriage, there's no need to add Colima civil unions to the map. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map

You seem to have lost the Coquille Tribe in Oregon in the latest version. Also, you seem to have filled in Lake Ladoga, in Russia, near the Finnish border. 80.61.230.65 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

bacon

Can the word bacon be pronounced /ˈbeɪkɒn/ ? 198.105.105.117 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not as far as I know. I suspect the difference is that "tempest" is a literary word not in most people's daily vocab, and so is more likely to be pronounced as it's spelled, whereas "bacon" is an everyday word, so the spelling is less likely to interfere with pronunciation. (But then you get "often", which is an extremely common word and yet has interference from the spelling, so frequency can't be the only factor.) — kwami (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So, can the word ticket be pronounced /ˈtɪkɛt/ ? 198.105.117.248 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Again, a very common word, with set idiomatic expressions ("that's the ticket!"), so AFAIK there's no spelling pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Khari boli

Why cannot I edit something that i am certain about ? and moreover the picture attached with the Khariboli region also clearly shows that Khari Boli is indeed spoken in Nepal, then why do you need to revert my edits ?

By putting Nepal before the reference, you claim that the reference says it's spoken in Nepal. AFAICT it does not say that. Intentionally or not, that makes the statement a falsehood. If you have another reference which does support your claim, you can add it with that reference. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What if I am certain about something but don't know about references, can such details be put on pages ? In case of Khari boli, i am certain about it because Khari boli happens to be my mothertongue and i have visited the regions in Nepal where the language was infact spoken by the rurals there.

Schematic single bond minus

In this edit of double bond you commented "<!--Use &minus;, not &ndash;, for a schematic single bond-->". Do you have a source for this, or did you make it up? —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's what works. A minus matches the width of the double and triple bonds, whereas an en dash does not. Sources use the same width for all bonds. There may be another, less common Unicode character that would also work (perhaps Unicode characters specifically for chemical bonds?), but I'm not aware of one. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In the default Wikipedia font, the en dash (–) and the minus (−) display identically, except that the en dash is slightly lower, at the same height as the hyphen and en dash, while the minus is even with the horizontal stroke of the plus sign. But again, the en dash and minus are the same length. Again I ask, do you have a source for your rule, or did you just make it up? Put it another way, is there anything anywhere in Wikipedia style guides that agrees with your rule, or can you point to even one other Wikipedia editor who follows your rule in other articles? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The 'default' Wiki font is sans-serif, i.e. your browser's default sans-serif font (usually Arial if on Windows). I'd look into using a proper typeface if the minus and en-dash display identically. - – — Lfdder (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We've talked about this, I forget where. The dash and minus are not in general the same length. The bonds should all be the same length, which means not using the dash. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was right that the en dash and minus display the same length, but I didn't note that minus has more white space following, as shown here:
C-C-C-C-C-C-C hyphen
C–C–C–C–C–C–C en dash
C−C−C−C−C−C−C minus
C=C=C=C=C=C=C equals
C≡C≡C≡C≡C≡C≡C identity
so if your objective is to use three symbols for single, double, and triple bond that all display the same length and the same spacing, I go along with minus, equals and identity. Thank you for your patience. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

potato

Can the word potato be pronounced /poʊˈteɪtoʊ/ ? 198.105.98.58 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The OED lists that as the only pronunciation, though I'm not sure I've ever heard it. (I'm in the US.) — kwami (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

tête

You hear [tɛːt] or [taɪ̯t] ? 198.105.98.58 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More like [tɐɪt], maybe. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid (hoax)

Where's the consensus? Ignoring matters of policy, focusing on other editors, and appealing to conspiracies don't make for consensus - just the opposite. Please address the policy issues. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be moved to "hoax", but that's the opinion of most of the commentators, and is supported by our sources. Your BLP objection doesn't seem valid, though we couldn't call any one person a hoaxer without specific sources, as the commentators have noted. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Please undo the move if you cannot support it better. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Support with what? It's a matter of opinion. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We're discussing consensus. You've used the word as rationale for your edits. Do you not understand what it means? --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

welcome

Can the word welcome be pronounced /ˈwɛlkʌm/ ? 198.105.98.28 (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would consider it to be a marked form - possibly from a foreign speaker, but no native English accent I know of would pronounce it as such. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in exaggerated enunciation? — kwami (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of the converse of my comment above. I could see pronouncing it like that to a non-native speaker as well. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

/ˈwɛlkəm/ and /ˈwɛlkʌm/ are not very different. I think /ˈwɛlkʌm/ is acceptable. 198.105.98.28 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

peut-être

You hear [pœtaɪ̯tχ] or [pœtaɪ̯tʀ] ? 198.105.98.28 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter. That one's clear. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hello, I am very impressed by the cartography that you realize. I would like to be able to collaborate with you, specially in the maps of the laws on homosexuality and the maps that treat political and economic topics. Thank you very much.kike

You're welcome to ask when you've got a project, though I'm not always free to collaborate. — kwami (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I am a geographer and I would like to realize an investigation on the legal evolution of the homosexuality from at least the second world war and to analyze the results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.180.111 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

muffin

Are there American people pronounce /ˈmʌfɪn/ for the word muffin ? 198.105.98.28 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard it. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

American people pronounce generally /ˈmʌfən/, right ? 198.105.98.28 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, approaching a syllabic /n/. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ver

You hear [væːʁ] or [vaɛ̯ʁ] ? 198.105.98.28 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you already asked me this one. I can't tell if the formants are moving or not, because of the R, and Praat can't handle .ogg files. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I already asked you hiver, not ver. 198.105.98.28 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese phonology

Are there some errors in the page Vietnamese phonology ? 198.105.98.28 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Arab Sign Language family naming.

I noticed that you moved this to Arab sign-language family which makes it inconsistent with the other articles such as French Sign Language family, German Sign Language family and Japanese Sign Language family. I would like to see it moved back.Naraht (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The FSL family is named after FSL, so it takes caps and is not hyphenated. The Arab family is not named after "Arab Sign Language", so no caps and it is hyphenated. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

ticket

I think /ˈtɪkɛt/ is not a wrong pronunciation. 198.105.113.97 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard it. People would understand you, but it would sound a bit funny. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pronounced /ˈtɪkɛt/ in Welsh English. 198.105.113.97 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

coconut

Can the word coconut /ˈkoʊkoʊnʌt/ ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but if someone said that I'd think they were making a joke on "cocoa nut". — kwami (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

So, the word opinion can be pronounced /oʊˈpɪnjən/ ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it would sound weird. It would work with a staccato, exaggerated prosody: That Is My Opinion, as if you weren't all there mentally. 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actress can be pronounced /ˈæktrεs/ ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Most words can be pronounced the way they're spelled, but it would seem like you were sounding out a word you didn't know. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But I think the word message can't be pronounced /'mεseɪdʒ/, right ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Maybe /ˈmɛsɛdʒ/ if exaggerated. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Effect can be pronounced /ɛˈfɛkt/ ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be /iːˈfɛkt/, despite the double ef. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

sadness

You hear [ˈsadnɪs] or [ˈsadnɛs] ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter, except that it's [æ]. — kwami (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

province

In American English, the word province is pronounced /ˈprɑvɪns/ or /ˈprɑvəns/ ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter. (Actually, with a schwi.) — kwami (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Should that be a long /ɑ:/? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a transcription variant for the same vowel. 01:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

quiet

Is there someone pronounces /ˈkwaɪɛt/ ? 198.105.113.97 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gay Marriage Image

Hey update your gay marriage image of the world map, it is now 100% legal in Britain the Queen just signed it into law today. RobColtsFan (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/17/britain-legalizes-gay-marriage/2524273/

Not really Britain, but thanks. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi kwami, could you please at least submit admin move requests for what you undid? Thanks, very much appreciated. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm really up to my eyeballs with other things right now. The fastest way to do this is to tag the destination with a deletion tag, and for the reason state that it's so the article can be moved there. That normally only takes a couple days. The person deleting might even move the article for you, but if not, you'll be able to. A formal move request can take a month. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your copy and paste moves at Mi'kmaq (disambiguation) and Mi'kmaq. I suggest thinking carefully before doing that again. older ≠ wiser 03:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map

Hi. Been looking at the Same-sex marriage map, and I saw you added the "almost legal" light blue countries. About Australia: you've got New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania light blue, but what about the Austrian Capital Territory, which is in the middle of New South Wales? Shouldn't that be a dot (like Washington, D.C. or the native American tribes in the US), whether it is light blue or grey? 80.61.230.65 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. — kwami (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

napkin

Napkin is never pronounced /ˈnæpkən/, isn't it ? 198.105.100.253 (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, in dialects which don't distinguish schwa from schwi. — kwami (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq (disambiguation)

I suggest you use a talk page on one of those articles to explain your actions than revert-warring with others. You may have a case for wanting to make Mi'kmaq a disambiguation page, but there is also good reason to move Mi'kmaq people to the primary topic name Mi'kmaq. This may be potentially controversial, so please discuss it on a talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial. It's how we do it with every ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is, you are edit warring, and failing to discuss changes that others disagree with. Consider this a final warning. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kwamikagami. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

fight

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo

Do you hear the word fight here ? 198.105.100.253 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Same pronunciation of fête as before. 04:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

tempête

You think it's [tãpaɪ̯t], [tãpəɪ̯t] or [tãpɐɪ̯t] ? 198.105.100.253 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My first impression is that it's [aɪ], but the vowel is so brief it's hard to tell. Definitely not [əɪ], though. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Dear K,

I just wanted to express my disappointment about your revert. I really think that this table should be there, because it shows very clearly the situation, and the countries are geographically so it helps people to see things clearly.

Best wishes, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Moreau (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any need to have the same table twice, and IMO your format overwhelms the text. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

accept

Accept is pronounced /ækˈsɛpt/ or /əkˈsɛpt/ ? 198.105.114.217 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've only heard the latter. Maybe you'd use the former when trying to distinguish it from except, but it would probably be easier to spell it. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Luri

Hello. Any idea if Luri is considered part of the Persian language? According to the Wikipedia article, it isn't and I haven't found a single source that considers it a Persian language. Would it be acceptable to conflate all Luri speakers and Persian language speakers here List of countries by Persian-speaking population. Iraq has 405,000 Persian language speakers and 99,000 "Luri, Northern" speakers, is conflating both Luri and Persian accurate? Chitooribah (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can't find any sources that conflate them, then it would seem to be OR to conflate them on WP. I don't know Persian, but that would seem to be similar to conflating Dutch with German. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Transduction error?

I see you have updated the speaker numbers for Ojibwe with e17 reference in the language infobox, but Ethnologue 17 reference lists only ojg, ojc and ojs, missing ojb, ojw, ciw, otw and alq in the count. I can't figure out how to correct this transduction. Please fix and adjust the number to 88260. Meanwhile, in the body, I will adjust the numbers there. Miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. How do you arrive at the figure of 88k? AFAICT, 44k is the total for all the constituent lects. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request move

Kwami, could you please move Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) to Admiral of the fleet (Royal Navy) over the redirect? WP:MILTERMS refers. Thanks in advance. Shem (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't. Tagged target for deletion. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Kwami - sorry, I didn't notice the "former admin" user box on your user page. Nevertheless, thanks for tagging it, and the move has now been made. Gratefully yours, Shem (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dalecarlian dialects

Please specify your <ref>Linguist List</ref> (exact website). --Frze (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's linked in the box. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's now linked in the box. Thanks and Good Night. --Frze (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It was already linked in the box. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Wuikinuxv people. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

There is no "discussion". I didn't see the comment. I moved to the name found in the sources I'm familiar with. The comment also skews the results by constraining the name they disprefer and not the other. You get the opposite results if you don't do that, and if you search of GBooks, there are few enough hits you can review them all for false positives. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a wikilink to the comment, and also a URL for the search you prefer? Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Template:World homosexuality laws map. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Your edit summary was: "actually wrong: SSM is performed in Mexico." Marriages are not performed in those states in cyan colour. That colour also includes countries like Israel.Cavann (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The cyan is nation-wide. The legend says that SSM is "not performed" is Mexico. Removing that claim is hardly OR or SYNTH, since it's directly contradicted by our sources. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Federal countries are not unitary states. I really had enough with you. You are being disruptive whether intentional or not. The cyan is not frikkin "nation-wide" in appearance. Cavann (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then Coahuila does not recognize SSM. You can't have it both ways. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Tampuon language, Kaco’ language and Lamam (Lmam)

Hi Kwami. I'm planning on expanding Tampuon language using Crowley's phonology and a few other sources. I noticed you started the article with:

"Tampuon (Tampuan) is a Central Bahnaric language of Cambodia. Lamam (Lmam) is a clan name also found among the Kaco', not a distinct language".

I'm curious as to why you included the part about Lamam in the Tampuon article. I've always been under the impression that "Lamam" is a dialect of Kaco' as spoken in adjacent areas of Viet Nam (Kaco' being the dialect spoken in Cambodia), that is to say, Kaco'/Lamam is distinct from, albeit closely related to Tampuon. Ethnologue seems to support this. Is it possible that the bit about Lamam in the Tampuon article was accidental, maybe from a quick copy and paste to start the article? Also the infobox for Tampuon includes the code "lmm" but, again, that link says it is associated with Kaco', not Tampuon. Was this just an oversight, or am I missing something?--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't recall my source. The "also" suggests that Lamam is a clan name among both the Tampuon and Kaco', though the Ethn. comment suggests it's also Jarai. Since I don't remember the source, I've moved Lamam to the Kaco' article. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Saraiki is a language

Saraiki is a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.107.201 (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Provide sources and get consensus on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC).

Dear Saraiki is language. see http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/20019 i have got consensus. 182.186.107.201 (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reflist

Hi Kwamikagami. Double check when you add |ref=e17 to the language infobox that a Reflist is present in the Reference section. Best, Sam 🎤 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No need. A bot will take care of it. In any case, I added them to most of these articles, and someone went around deleting them. — kwami (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

please address if you can - Elamite

I wrote in the lead for Elamite language that it is considered a language isolate. A "fringe believer" changed this to: " Classification of Elamite is disputed, it is sometimes considered a language isolate, although classification as Afroasiatic has been considered.[1] " From what I understand that 'dispute' is perhaps 10,000 to one ?? This guy can put that somewhere down in the article but re-worded, I don't think this should go in the lead, but the vast majority opinion, correct? Thanks! HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was unclassified due to lack of data, not an established isolate. The only popular classification I've seen is Elamo-Dravidian, but AFAICT that's been largely abandoned. I agree that speculative classifications should go in a dedicated section, as we do for other languages, not in the lead. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Different articles in ELL2 say it's an isolate or not fully deciphered. The dedicated article states,

Elamite cannot with any certainty be related to any known language, although a geographically plausible relation to the Dravidian languages has been discussed almost since the beginning of modern scholarship in the language (see the synthesis of McAlpin, 1981). Partly because of the lack of a known cognate language and partly also because of the relatively limited and stereotyped nature of the contents of the corpus, the interpretation of many aspects of Elamite grammar remains uncertain and subject to a great deal of discussion in the literature.

— kwami (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job. Note that I have two history books, one ç2001 and another ç2008 in my private library both listing it as not related to any other known language. This view may have to be re-written as you guys in the linguistics discipline come to another conclusion - or not. Hey, it could have been worse - some nutty editor may have said it was related to Turkish!  :-P HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it's not demonstrably related. The question is whether it's known well enough to be able to detect a relationship if one did exist. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

送

You hear [sʊŋ], [soŋ] or [sɔŋ] ? 198.105.124.127 (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Lungalunga language

Is Lungalunga a Patpatar–Tolai language or is it not? Like Kahuroa on Talk:Polynesian languages#Components, I don't put much stock in ABVD's classification ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

IPA symbols, not letters

Kwamikagami, I've reinstated the edit I made about the International Phonetic Alphabet having symbols not letters. The official IPA chart and the Introduction to the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association refer to the 'characters' as symbols . No phonetician calls them letters, because they are symbols, like chemists' use of Au for gold or Fe for iron, a shorthand designation for a physical object which exhibits a constellation of (in this case: phonetic) properties. I hope you'll take a look at the IPA materials and retain the edit. Teaching my students the difference is hard enough without them being misinformed by Wikipedia. MarkJJones (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Letters are symbols. But if everyone calls them "symbols", without bothering to differentiate letters and diacritics, then I suppose it won't matter if we do too. However, you're doing something else, distinguishing "symbols" from "diacritics". Diacritics are, of course, also symbols. If you're going to change the terminology, you should do so consistently. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

When you say "you" in your reply, do you mean the International Phonetic Association, because that's the body I'm citing. I reiterate my point: no chemist would not call Fe "chemical letters", they would call Fe a chemical symbol. It's exactly the same for phoneticians. I can't help what laypeople do (your "everyone"), but as an expert body, the IPA in its publications never ever ever ever refers to the "IPA letters". The article should reflect expert usage, and not what non-experts have come to accept as a possible label. The worst aspect of using "letter" is that it confuses speech and writing, and for that reason alone - barring the techncal non-usage - it should be avoided. MarkJJones (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Things can be a part of more than one group. So while the IPA is a collection of phonetic "symbols", those symbols can be further broken down into various sub-categories, like "letters", "diacritics", "supersegmentals"; and those can be further broken down, eg "consonant letters", "fricative letters", "vowel diacritics", etc. Just because something is a symbol doesn't mean it's not also a letter as well. So when you are trying to talk about the IPA system in its entirety, using the term "symbol" is distinctly appropriate. If you are contrasting with diacritics, then "symbol" is unambiguously inappropriate, since diacritics are IPA symbols. IPA "letters" is the only term that actually contrasts with IPA diacritics. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Like all alphabets, the International Phonetic Alphabet, a phonetic alphabet as it says on the tin, consists primarily of letters (with diacritics as an added bonus, which are, however, of explicitly secondary importance) – you could also call them characters or graphemes, if you must, but letters is emphatically not incorrect usage because the letter-like symbols of the IPA are not phones, they only designate them more or less approximately (especially in broad, phonemic or even morphophonological transcription, which is equivalent to and not essentially different from traditional orthography systems, only more systematic than many of them), just like the letters of any old alphabet: using letter does not "confuse[s] speech and writing" in any sense because an IPA transcription of speech, no matter how narrow, is not speech. It is writing, no more and no less.

The "confusion between speech and writing" argument sounds as if you harboured the misguided idea that an IPA letter such as [m] is somehow more objective and closer to what it designates than traditional orthography, but no, IPA's just an arbitrary alphabet (with many competitors), not a magical system of "real sounds"; historically, IPA grew out of a spelling reform proposal for English (Romic); the idea to turn it into a universal phonetic alphabet is a later development. IPA is privileged among phonetic alphabets for the same reason English is privileged among natural languages (and Esperanto among auxlangs): not because it is somehow inherently better, closer to reality or whatever, but part out of laziness and part out of sheer historical accident. But being the expert you are, you must know that already.

The analogy with chemistry doesn't work because chemical symbols aren't part of an alphabet in any meaningful sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Vanisaac and Florian both summed it up well. Mark, when I said "you", I meant thee. It was your edit that implied that diacritics are not symbols. That is wrong whether or not "letter" is appropriate. — kwami (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

just curious

All those large shogi variants – have you actually played them? (I've personally never actually thought deeply about anything larger than tenjiku. Perhaps I should!) Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Never. I don't know anyone who has. It would be hard to, without us even being sure of the rules, and I suspect they might not be very well designed. — kwami (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on those I have thought about: Chu and tenjiku are good games (although the latter is quite bloody). Dai is way too slow. Wa and tori are cool. Double sharp (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've played those apart from Dai. I like Chu quite a bit. I guess I was thinking of Dai and up as being "large". — kwami (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Kwamikagami/old — ǂ’Amkoe

"User talk:Kwamikagami/old" is a new subpage of this talk page.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Copying next. — kwami (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

ǂ’Amkoe

Hi Kwamikagami,

someone just asked me to please send my dissertation to read since the following page says that I published in 2011 already.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/%C7%82%E2%80%99Amkoe_language

This is total non-sense as is most of the stuff written on the page, that is most things on the page are scientifically simply wrong. I don't know who put me into the references, but if you are able to, please remove all my references as well as the reference Gerlach & Berthold from the list since these papers/presentations do not support anything written on my page.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Linda Gerlach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moromisicka (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Linda,

Sure we can delete them, but as far as I remember, those refs said what they are paraphrased as saying. If other things are incorrect, they should of course be corrected, but I don't see how deleting good refs improves the article.

Was that not your dissertation? It was published online in 2011, even if subsequently removed. — kwami (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kwamikagami,

why don't you delete these refs by Gerlach&Berthold as you are told to do several times now? As you might have realized by now, most of the content you publish here is incorrect and you do those renowned researchers quite a disservice by quoting any of their work in your completely inadequate article. bernardorion

A) nobody tells anyone what to do on Wikipedia - editors discuss things and come to consensus. B)Reliable sources are the way that this project is built, and fair use is a condition upon which all material is published. As such, there is no process by which an author can deny the fair use of their published works, such as citation on Wikipedia, and there is no Wikipedia policy by which demands of that sort can be entertained. Furthermore, if Kwami were to remove reliable sources from the article, it would be against Wikipedia policy, and the sources would be placed back in the article, with sanctions possibly filed for vandalism. C)If you have specific concerns about inaccurate content, please edit the page to fix it. But understand that removal of reliable sources is unambiguously against Wikipedia policy, and can get you blocked or banned from the site. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kwamikagami,

thanks for your reply.

No, it was definitely not my dissertation, since I am currently still writing it. There are several problems with this article: first, it includes links to presentations held at a University quite a long time ago which are thus not up to date and which should actually not be public. I already asked the University to remove them.

Second, a lot of the stuff on the page is simply copied from these presentations without reference which is totally against scientific practice! Third, there are a lot of errors in the article in general which clearly show, that the author/authors do not know what they are writing about and I don't want to be cited on such a page. If all errors are corrected I have no problem being cited, but then please cite published materials and not power point presentations!

I hope this was constructive enough and you understand the problems.

Sincerely, L. Gerlach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.96.198 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Linda,

What you're asking is that I remove the accurate information rather than correct the inaccurate. That really isn't the way to go for an encyclopedia article. Also, the fact that sources are dated merely means that they should be updated. Could you tell us the sources you judge to be accurate and up-to-date? If I don't have access to them, and you can't point me to where they are on-line, I might be able to get someone to get them for me through ILL. Then I could rewrite the article to something you hopefully find acceptable. Either that, or you're welcome to rewrite the article yourself. It's short enough that it wouldn't take long. Or you could at least point out problematic claims on the talk page. People have criticized it for not being written by s.o. who knows what they're doing, but it seems that the few people who know what they're doing are unwilling to write the article. You can't very well criticize it for being sub-par if you're not willing to help out. — kwami (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kwamikagami,

References No 7 and 9 are just working drafts providing some basis for discussions and meant for internal use only and should not serve as references. So we ask you kindly to remove them from the list. Furthermore we would like to add that some of the thesis stated here are subject to review and are not scientifically grounded (BR HU Berlin).

They're conference presentations! We use sources like that all the time. Peer reviewed sources are better, of course, but in this case we hardly have any. As for being subject to review, published grammars in general (even English grammars) are full of errors and subject to review. And if they are not scientifically grounded, how can you look your colleagues in the eye when you present them? Sorry, that doesn't make much sense to me. But as I said, you're welcome to correct any misinformation in the article, and to use better sources. I've been trying to improve this article, on and off, for years, and no-one knowledgeable seems interested in helping. That's fine, but the cost of not correcting incorrect information is that people will have incorrect information. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn’t quite understand. We think that most of YOUR article’s content should definetely be subject to review and some parts of YOUR article are not scientifically grounded. What we do not understand is, how someone can be so stubborn not to remove these references in view of this special situation.

As you have obviously no idea of what you are writing about, we strongly suggest not writing at all. It’s people like you who make an online encyclopedia like Wikepedia suffer from a lack of credibility. (BR HU Berlin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.251.119.48 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being extremely unprofessional. If you want a better article, then write a better article, or at least provide the resources for us to do so. If you can't be bothered to do that, then you evidently care nothing about popular understanding of the language. Why even bother making complaints if they're going to be inane? You have yet to point out a single error. I can't take you seriously if you're not going to be serious. — kwami (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Old Babylonian query ...

I was wondering what the Linguist opinion is on the known pronunciation of "Old Babylonian" would have been in the days of the Chaldean-dynast revived New Babylonian Empire; Nabonidas's obsession with the ancient past might have resulted in him gathering scribes/scholars of his day to determine the spoken language? Surely the priest-scholars-scribes would have been able to see that old cuneiform texts were different in language "structure" than modern Babylonian - like Olde English versus 18th century English - and wondered? I realize this is a question that is loaded with assumptions, but I am curious to when the dearth of pronunciation of the original language was "lost" due to decline/invasions/etc.

Thanks, Hammer (aka Brian) HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if noticing that vocab/grammar were different would cause them to realize the pronunciation was different too (I can see a lot of people not making that connection), and even if they suspected it was, most people would simply use the closest approximation in a living language they knew, but really I have no idea. I think there are several members of WProject languages who know about this era and might be able to help. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Disfix

I don't mind your revert that much, but it doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the very definition of a classic disfix when you remove a prefix and replace it with a null prefix? (Please respond on my talkpage.) Thanks! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Andamanese Language Map

Hey, saw the revert for the map in Andamanese Languages. I had posted a schematic version that provided some more context with today's landmarks (GT Road, cities). I also felt the original map is of too low resolution (say for printing for discussion in class).

Don't think it makes sense to have both maps on the page. So is there anything else you would recommend that would make this an improvement from the current map? I would be happy to make the changes.

Rasagy (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I hesitated over that. There are two problems with the old map: it's foreshortened, and it's not clear what all the colors mean in the south. I see two problems also with the new map: It's orientated funny (north is not up), and the physical borders are not accurate (schematic). Depending on your philosophy, you might consider the anachronism of the new map (one of the reasons you gave for creating it) to be a problem as well. In addition, the language borders are mismatched. I don't know whether this means the old map, new map, or both are inaccurate, so I kept the old map because it has at least been passively reviewed for several years, and so hopefully isn't too far off. Which source did you base the language borders on in your map? — kwami (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the schematic aspect - I had similar discussions regarding the pros & cons of using this style. The conclusion was that since this is meant to roughly highlight which part of the islands had which language, a schematic map works well too. Had the intent been to show a more defined boundary (say state/district), an actual map would be more useful.

I've used 3 sources: The original map & this article about the Andamanese language for the language boundaries, and a more defined map by Oona Räisänen for the island boundaries (with some abstraction for the schematic feel)

The map was tilted slightly so the 45°-90° grid is maintained (and the islands become vertical). I've seen such a variation common in schematic maps, but if it's not a general practice on Wikipedia, I can change the orientation, or provide a compass rose to mark the true North. — Rasagy (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should find what their sources were. The history of the WP map was erased when it was copied to Commons, and the author you used has no idea what he's talking about. They might even have the same origin. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Humm, in my initial search, I only found these sources. Since this map data was collected in 1858, finding a better source might be hard. Also, most of these languages are extinct (have no speakers), as mentioned on Ethnologue. Will update here if I find any other source. Rasagy (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the original source(s). Every time a map get copied by hand, errors are introduced. IMO it would be a good idea for us to copy from the originals. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's what PrimeHunter at the Village Pump dug up on the sourcing for the old map: [1] I must say it looks pretty. That's half the reason I'd like to keep it. Visual appeal is important too. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If looks pretty is the only plus in the original one, then I feel the schematic one is better (more functional, with cues like city and GT Road for reference, and higher resolution). Also checking with others on India Related Topics if they have some suggestions. — Rasagy (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not the only. It's also been reviewed by other editors. The borders in yours are a conflation of this map with your source, but should really follow best sources. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I felt that Oona Räisänen's map is the best source for the islands. IMO this being a schematic map of languages doesn't need to have exact coastlines. If there's a better source which shows islands & language distribution accurately, I'll be happy to see that in the page/create a schematic based on that for the wiki page. — Rasagy (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That would make a much nicer map, IMO. BTW, it doesn't look like the old map was particularly reliable, so I don't think there's any need to compromise your sources to match. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mascoian

According to Unruh & Kalisch there are six languages: Angaité, Guaná (note the acute), Enlhet (Lengua norte), Enxet (Lengua sur), Sanapaná, Toba-maskoy/Toba-enenlhet [2]. Angaité is apparently considered a Sanapaná dialect in Ethnologue; Enlhet and Enxet are counted as one Lengua language. Ethnologue's data seems to be outdated but even if we cling to it as more authoritative it won't hurt to mention the alternative classification in the corresponding articles. And finally, Toba-Maskoy is a better name for a language than just Maskoy/Mascoy, which is ambiguous.--Adnyre (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I started making just those changes last night. You're welcome to continue them, if you like. Thanks for the ref. BTW, Fabre has requested that SIL make them too, so it's possible Ethn. will catch up with us. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hindi

May I know why have you reverted the changes I made to the article called Hindi? First of all I want to mention that the entire article has been written with prejudice in mind, and the neutrality of the article is questionable too. Article does not respect the census data provided by the Government of India instead it relies on some unverified ethnologue at the same time it tries to separate various Hindi dialect from it just for the sake of reducing the number of native speakers, why haven’t you done anything with regards to this very aspect of this article. If you want I can give you data but the way you have reverted it without discussing it is shows your arrogant and pathetic attitude. Quality of this article is also extremely poor. I want you to do some research and correct the facts. Dinesh smita (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the wrong Hindi. The article is about Manak Hindi, your figures were not. I've tried to get the article moved to an unambiguous name, but have been outvoted. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dené–Yeniseian languages

Hi Kwamikagami,

Can you please provide an explanation for Na-Dene and Yeniseian language families to be grouped together. It is not yet a widely accepted language family and the article on Dené–Yeniseian languages states so. If this family is accepted widely, then the article should reflect the change. I am just a beginner in wikipedia and no linguist, so I really do not know whether the grouping is correct or not. For people with no prior knowledge about this, it would be a favour if you could modify the article Dené–Yeniseian languages accordingly with references supporting that it is a widely accepted family. Otherwise, it doesnt do justice to group them together only in the template and let the main article take a contradictory stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurumoorthy Poochandhai (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed from the template regardless, any more than other proposed families. AFAICT it seems to be widely accepted among those who have looked at it, but is new and hasn't been looked at by all that many people. (Though it has more support than other families in the table that no-one cares about.) — kwami (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AWB runs and Gambia

Your AWB edits change the capitalisation of "The Gambia" to "the Gambia". However, sources such as the factbook and the BBC capitalise The, as does their official website and statehouse website. Is this something that AWB can be adjusted to counter for? CMD (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

On WP we don't capitalize. The govt of the Gambia is inconsistent, sometimes within a single page. This has been debated, and our article titles are not capitalized, following international trends. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why has The Gambia article not moved to Gambia in that case? CMD (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of "the" is more common, as with the Bahamas, but that has nothing to do with capitalization. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Obsolete" information on African languages.

Please, please do update everything that no longer applies. Or add "formerly". But I would certainly cite information from 1913 for Welsh, English, or any other language worldwide if it demonstrated the nature and character of the language. Surely the criterion is not the date at which the source was produced, but the accuracy of the data. In any case, shouldn't we make use of 100-year-old information to illustrate linguistic history? Shouldn't we grasp at that rather than - AS IS THE CASE WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LANGUAGES OF AFRICA - having no information (apart from classification) at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.A.Biddulph (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The result of many of your edits is likely misinformation replacing a lack of information. Yes, accuracy is important rather than the date, but little linguistic information from the 19th century is likely to be accurate. And if we don't have subsequent evaluation, we have no reason to think it was accurate. It would be different if the language were extinct and all we had was data from that era, but even then a modern evaluation of the data is preferable to the original sources. But you're talking about living languages which surely have been investigated since 1878 or 1913 or even 1959. If nothing else, the orthography is likely to be obsolete, and classifications from those times are worse than worthless. Knowledge builds on knowledge, and any recent RS will have already evaluated and accounted for those older sources. I'm glad you're willing to spend the time to investigate and write on these languages, but if you're going to do the work, why not do a good job? Find recent, authoritative, and reliable sources and build the articles from there. A good overview of a region or family will point you to all sorts of well-respected accounts of individual languages.

Also, lists of random words are not considered appropriate for WP. That's more of a Wiktionary thing. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Paucity of information on African vernacular languages.

I'm sorry, but I still can't understand why information 100 years old is NECESSARILY outdated, to the point of being MISINFORMATION! I have been an amateur student of the African linguistica for about 35 years now, living with the constant frustration of not being able to find information, old or new, on most of the African languages - or even clear definitions of which language is which. If Wikipedia insists on such narrow criteria as I try to share what little I have got, then Wikipedia is obviously unfit for the task of describing the African linguistica - as any Africanist may agree, this continues an existing bias against these languages, a continuing obscurity which an insistence on only current material is bound to make even worse. The vocabularies are added for the express purpose of helping to identify which language is which - no good talking about current spelling or orthographical conventions if they either do not exist, or have got little beyond the decisions of an academic conference. And when I find current practice corresponds to IPA suggestions from such as Daniel Jones over 100 years ago, I am emboldened to try and make some use of material that old.

On the subject of language identification, I have been trying VERY HARD to fit information into the Stubs, etc. already provided - often a matter of uncertainty and difficulty, given the fact that no two sources, old or new, will describe the same language or variety even by the same name! I have to add that I do not agree with current classifications, as too generic by far, even where individual languages are accurately placed. I took particular exception to the Cambridge University Press LANGUAGES OF AFRICA 2000, because of its high-and-mighty academic-led approach, offering us irrefutable categories to which we must accede in spite of evidence, or even in default of any. This sort of thing may be Wikipedia-friendly, but I thought the idea of the exercise was to set down objective truth objectively as nearly as we can. I do not think, from my experience in other branches of linguistics, that languages, even purely oral media, undergo change as rapidly as to invalidate an observation make 3 and a half generations ago - especially if that observation is in fact the only one we've got. The stuff on language classification of course of that period is utter rot - but I have a feeling that the categories of 2000 may prove to be just so in a few years' time. The fixed element, if you like, is that if you ask for maji somebody might bring you a drink of water, whether that language is now called Negro-African or Bantu or whatever. The languages of my own country - Welsh and English - are dear to me, and a part of my identity. The fact that somebody has classified them both as Indo-European is, if you like, incidental. So why should African media be denied a similar identity?? Why shouldn't the speaker of such a language find it in Wikipedia and say, "Yes, that's my language - or pretty near it! I'm glad somebody at least has acknowledged its existence!"

Sorry to go on at such length - but I really feel that unless you can find something better (and I invite the scholars of the world to do so) it would be a bad idea to rub out what little there is. Add caveats if you will - but please don't shrink every people's language down to a Guthrie list classification. And please don't judge the accuracy of information by the date it has on it! This approach is unscholastic and restrictive in the extreme - and often does a disservice to those who spent long years in the country where the relevant language was used, and sat in their lonely house (like Captain Abraham with his typewriter with the missing dot over the i, used to describe both Yoruba and Idoma) trying to share it all with the rest of the world. Greggs in the 1970s saw fit to reprint a lot of this sort of stuff (and went bust in the process) because they realised that without it there would be a perfect and absolute blank. The people at Hippocrene Books in New York valiantly try to do the same (how they finance it all, I do not know)- look at the vintage of some of their current titles! Indian publishing houses are turning out volumes produced by somebody with a European name in the colonial period - because otherwise there would be nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.A.Biddulph (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your philosophical opposition to modern classification does not belong on WP, as other editors who reverted you have already said. You may oppose recognition of Afro-Asiatic, but we're an encyclopedia, so we accept it because all scholars accept it. If you want to promote your own research, you'll need to start your own website. As for the paucity of data on African languages, that's difficult for WP to fix.

The problem with old records is not that the language has changed, but that they are often so badly transcribed that you can't identify the language from the records even if you speak the language. I've seen some descriptions published in old linguistic works that are so bad that even native speakers don't recognize the words, where I've literally gone to dozens of people trying to figure out what the words are and can't, only realizing later that it was not because the words are obsolete, but because the transcription was mangled. Things of that quality have no place here.

You bring up two interesting points: First, if there is no recent data , do we add really old data? I suspect that often this may simply be that you don't have access to more recent info, not that it doesn't exist. For example, you've added data on Tigre from 1936. Now, Tigre is a major language with an established literature and plenty of modern linguistic descriptions, so there's absolutely no need to resort to inferior sources. I suggest you take this to wikiproject languages and ask what others think, but I suspect you'll need to explain how you know there are no good modern sources.

Second, that adding miscellaneous vocab will allow people to identify a language when they come across speakers of it. That's an interesting proposition, effectively making WP a language field guide. Again, perhaps a question for the language project. However, if you're going to do that, IMO the sections should be explicitly titled to let readers know that's what they're for, and so other editors don't delete them as simple word lists. Also, you probably shouldn't have words like "no" and "God" which are not diagnostic of the language in question. In other words, we could have some serious OR problems if our sources were not intended to be diagnostic. But even if the project agrees this is a good idea, using bad data is not. Imagine you added some bad "Korana" data to that article, and I come across some elders who still speak the language. I read them the mangled words you added, and they don't recognize them. I conclude that they don't speak Korana after all, and don't announce the discovery. In that case the info you added would have actually done harm, and it would have been better if there had been nothing at all.

But again, I really think that the place for this discussion is the wikiproject. Perhaps people there will vouch for the quality of your 1959 source on Bantu languages, for instance, and they'll decide that it's appropriate for us to use it as a major source of data. — kwami (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If "all scholars" accept the classification "Afro-Asiatic" then it is an untruth, if I myself reject it, even though I work for no academic institution. The alternative suggestion is that I am not a "scholar". I change no classifications as given - but if I sincerely think they are WRONG??? No doubt Wikipedia prefers "all scholars" to my incompetent amateur fumblings. Knowing how strongly I feel about giving parity to the African linguistica, and the frustration offered by your condemnation of my material, good or bad, perhaps I should take advice and desist, with the invitation that perhaps "all scholars" should come forward, and fill all the gaps and Stubs with really useful material newly-minted. Meanwhile I shall amateurishly fumble at Africanlanguagesinformation@gmail.com where I shall continue to endeavour to offer to my contacts what I can. I'm perfectly sure you could get hold of THE BANTU LANGUAGES OF AFRICA from 1959 and ATTEMPT to re-visit every item in it in view of all the very latest unquestioned and unquestioning scholastic fads and fancies - but would that tell us any more truth about the speeches and media of my brothers and sisters in Africa? Would your rubbishing of the information make it any less true, where it does prove to be accurate? I was alive in 1959 - I suppose those who spoke the various languages in 1959 may in some cases still be alive. Even if the language they spoke is otherwise dead, it is conceivable that somebody may want to know that it existed, or even that it was believed to have existed, but erroneously.

And I'm glad TIGRE seems so well-documented - perhaps you could suggest a few titles for my bookshelf? Strange that none of the people with all the latest have failed to offer any sort of information on Tigre to Wikipedia readers? I have always wanted them to do just that! Just thought a fumbling amateur (putatively "non-scholar") might fill up the space a bit meanwhile, since I find such rubbish written on the Ethiopian languages. I thought the "Edit" button was that so these experts could quietly cross out my mistakes and put them right.

But please do not expect me to cease complaining if the reputable institution that Wikipedia is seeking to become continues to FAIL to treat African languages as fully and as intelligently as it treats other languages ancient and modern - I really think that the deficit at present amounts to an intellectual scandal. Sorry if this is unscholastic - perhaps you could canvass the views of the dozen or so Africanists in the world and get a PROPER opinion from proper scholars included in that elusive "all"?? I presume that since ordinary chumps like me are excluded from the category, such an exercise wouldn't take long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.248.121 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen an Africanist who rejects AA. The closest I've seen is rejection of Omotic being AA, and even than is an extreme minority view. So yeah, AFAICT, "all".

I agree the paucity of coverage is frustrating. But again, IMO better no information than bad information. As I said, this is something better discussed at the wikiproject, where you may find that others agree with you instead of me. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has made this kind of personalized chart

User:Double sharp/Consonants – since reading your very old tips at Talk:Alveolar trill (which BTW are not working yet, but we'll see in a few months!!!), I was wondering if you had any general tips on how to get rid of the grey areas there... Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we could sit down together!

Retroflexes: Curl your tongue back so the underside touches the palate. They're not difficult.

[ʋ]: Just a light [v]. Don't make full contact with your teeth.

[ʙ]: You need a lot of air. Keep your lips loose, like a Richard Nixon impression.

— kwami (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I got the retroflexes and [ʋ]...somehow [ʙ] keeps going linguolabial on me!

pretty interested in how to get all those radicals and glottals down. Not that I'm going to use them very much, but somehow I figured out how to make [ħ] (though I'm still figuring out how to control it!) and really want the rest for completeness. It seems easier after open vowels (e.g. [aħ] for me is easier than [ħa]). I suspect this is due to a lack of much need for radicals in the languages I actually speak (look at my Babel :-D) Double sharp (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kotava

Greetings! Since my issues brought up at Talk:Kotava have not been addressed, I have decided to start a deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotava (3rd nomination). Your input will be greatly appreciated. Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Na'vi grammar

I am adding content on the grammar of constructed languages. I looked through the archive of the na'vi language page, and found that It was moved because quote "The reason is as stated above, since most of this material is original, unsourced, or some combination". I found sources (which I considered reliable) and put inline citations. This is all material which I wrote. I will remind you that this is a)an overview, not a complete descripton and b)AFD the page if you want to delete it reH ghun ghunwI' 03:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is basically just a repeat of what I already wrote and had removed, and those sources are no more reliable than I am. Indeed, the sourcing and quality is comparable to the articles at Wikibooks. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked the article at Wikibooks. It lacks inline citations for much of it's claims. I think that the reference grammar of na'vi is reliable, because Frommer links on his website to it. (Although I admit a published book of grammar, like Unua Libro or The Klingon Dictionary would be better). Also, it was removed because it was cluttering the page (which, at its height was 96K). This page could be used for people who want a more thorough description of the basic grammar (not as material for beginners, like the wikibook), and there is no reason why the content on wikibooks and this page cannot coexist. The page is separate from the na'vi language article, and is not technically what was removed. reH ghun ghunwI' 04:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

About the sourcing: the reference grammar itself is a secondary source: It links to Frommer's Emails, the Langlog article and Naviteri posts. Although I will try and change my citations to directly use what Frommer has published. reH ghun ghunwI' 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, 2ary sources are preferable. And the sources you have used have been reviewed by the community. Hopefully the errors have been worked out by the latest edition (I haven't been keeping track). — kwami (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

West Bomberai

Thanks for cleaning up the [West Bomberai languages] page. One question though: the term "family-level isolate" as used in Ethnologue is potentially misleading. It is certainly not the same as a language "isolate". And the use of this concept can lead to some odd classifications. For example, in a family without any subgroup structure, all the members languages would be "family-level isolates". At the very least shouldn't Karas be listed as "family-level isolate"? Or would it be even better to drop the term altogether? Gholton (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Ethn. using the phrase. It's "isolate" the way that Greek and Albanian are IE isolates. It comes from Wurm's classification, where he lists languages without close relatives as family-, stock-, and phylum-level isolates, depending on how deep you had to go to find purported relatives. I think it's useful to convey that many of these small families have considerable time depth to them, despite only containing a handful of languages. And no, he didn't use it for, say, a dialect continuum with no internal structure, or for a family where the internal structure had not been worked out. He meant it specifically for cases where the structure had been worked out, and some languages constitute distinct branches the way Greek and Albanian do. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 00:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to "Brunei Malay"

There's a difference between Kedayan and Bruneian Malay as you can see here ([3] [4]). And you should read all these books ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) to see there's a difference between Bruneian Malay and Kedayan. Even though this two race have a similarity, they still have a difference both in culture and language! Plus you should not just labelled it as a "nationality".— иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but that's not what "Bruneian" means in English. "Bruneian" is a nationality, not an ethnicity, just as "Malaysian" is a nationality. — kwami (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

can you help or give me a good Greek linguist on Wiki? need it explained

http://postimg.org/image/rs5cg9bbh/034366e6/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what "it" is. User:Erutuon works on Ancient Greek and might be able to help, or know who can. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict, didn't post right the first time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of markup language got mixed in, and that they're saying that Turkish cacık comes from Greek τζατζικι. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The other way around is true. When not "expressive", [t͡s] and [d͡z] are mostly found in loans. — Lfdder (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a relatively modern Greek word, due to the τζ digraphs in it. I don't have much knowledge of Greek after the Koine period. I will defer to others more qualified. — Eru·tuon 05:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple questions

Howdy. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Why did you make this edit again without explanation after I reverted you?
2. What benefit is there to rounding a number that is only four digits long and possibly already rounded in the provided reference?

Personally, I think we should go with what is in the reference (assuming it is reliable) rather than round it.--Rockfang (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I didn't know I was reverting you, so I didn't know there was anything to explain.

2. All 7,500 language articles with boxes are rounded to two figures. Actually, I suspect that two figures is too many in most cases: One citation can have five times as many speakers, or a fifth as many, as another just a couple years before, and two figures suggests that we know the number to a reasonable degree of precision when in most cases we don't. Two figures is not unreasonable for some better-known languages that aren't growing or shrinking too fast, though even there it's usually too much. Take English, where two figures suggests 1% precision. There's no way that our figures for English are accurate to within 1%. You can hardly find two independent estimates that are within 10% of each other. — kwami (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish people

Hello Kwami

You edited the article >>http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kurdish_people

and wrote the source does not address the paragraph, but it actually did exactly this. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325225/Kurdish-language

The source is about the Kurdish language. And if the reason is that we only use sources for linguistic, than why does that need to be specifically Mackenzie's classification?

Anyway just asking not that it is essential to change it back.

regards Wikisupporting (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant the following paragraph wasn't supported by its sources. The EB supports the EB classification, but it's not linguistic. As for why Mackenzie, I don't know, but he looks fairly typical. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

math

kwami (talk), off course I provide source in all my articles. However, using words like bad math and silliness belongs to rude people and not professionals. Using provocative words is not only stupid but uncivilized. Bad math means my calculations are wrong, but to the contrally, all you should have done is cite significant figures as you have done. Anyway, this is insignificant, our defense for your Ngangela that it is not being a language but a tool to erase Mbunda is what matters, and that is where it pains you most. I hate sarcastic people. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. Citing significant figures was evidently not enough, as you continued to edit war.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Ngangela. You've gone on about this again and again, but I don't see the point. Is there anything that you're actually objecting to? — kwami (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that you have now used the right method for significant figures. However, I do not agree with you for denying the Ngangela issue because on 27th October 2011 at 20.39, you created a page claiming that Ngangela is a language. You went further to claim that Ngangela is also called Nyemba. As it has so far been established, Ngangela is an Umbundu describing the people of the east, or Ngangela is a generic term for peoples east of the Central Highlands, ref: José Redinha, Etnias e culturas de Angola, Luanda: Instituto de Investigalção Científica de Angola, 1975 and it has a slightly derogatory meaning when applied by the western ethnic groups, ref: Alvin W. Urquhart, Patterns of Settlement and Subsistence in Southwestern Angola, National Academies Press, 1963, p 10 but in a narrow sense is used specifically for Nyemba ref: Achim von Oppen, 1993, Terms of Trade and Terms of Trust: The History and Contexts of Pre-Colonial Market Production Around the Upper Zambezi and Kasai, p 31 ff'. Obviously Nyemba is not on the east of the Central Highlands.

Secondly, Missionery Emily Pearson tried to concoct a Ngangela language in his English-Ngangela Dictionary, reading this dictionay clearly shows that their is no specific Ngangela language citated. He gives meanings in several languages of Mbunda, Luchazi, Nyemba and others he chose to convince and confuse the reader. This scheem has worked, since Mbunda language has been replaced by Ngangela as a National languge, when it is not. This is our actual objection, as you ask. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I made those changes based on the sources that you provided at the time. If you've now decided you want something else, you'll need to say exactly what. You're just contradicting yourself above. Also, if the name "Ngangela" is used for the national language, then it's our responsibility to reflect that. Perhaps we should redirect from Nyemba to Mbunda? — kwami (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, redirecting it is one way to expose this linguistic fraud. We spoke to a former Government official an Anthropologist and an Umbundu, Mr. Virgilio Coelho of Luanda, who agrees with us that this is a fraud and it is up to us to fight it. The contradiction is caused by the same fraud which has also confused sources, but the truth is that Ngangela is not a language. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

By "us", does he mean himself? He needs to first fix it as the official name of the language, or get published explaining what it means. As for "fraud", I seriously doubt that's what it is. There are thousands of language names which came from neighboring languages, such as German and Eskimo, and while some are dispreferred, none are called "frauds". — kwami (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not make myself clear. By "us", I meant he agrees with the Mbunda positon on Ngangela. He however went on to say this has been going on for a long time, since the Portuguese colonial era and therefore correcting an error starts with a step. He can neither fix nor publish what it means because, while as he was the Deputy Minister of Culture, he no longer holds that position of influence. I understand you, "fraud" might be too strong a word to used but that is how the Mbunda feel, something stolen from them. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I redirected Ngangela to Mbunda and gave Ngangela as an alt name, added a hat note to redirect the reader to Nyemba, and tagged that article as needing a ref that in official use "Ngangela" means Mbunda rather than Nyemba, which is how it's used on Ethnologue. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted and agreed. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't note that you gave an alt name for Mbunda as Ngangela. This name is despised by the Mbunda because it is derogatory. They will never accept that, Mbunda is Mbunda from inception no one can give them another name without their approval. In this case, the redirect is fine but not an alt name, it cannot be there without the explanatory edit which you reverted. I suggest its removal because it justifies a non existent language.Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Baltimore dialect → Baltimore accent ()

I don't have a problem with the change of "dialect" to "accent", but the stray parens are definitely look wrong. Also same mistake in your move-target of New York accent (). DMacks (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Should be cleaned up soon. — kwami (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

NY Accent/Baltimore Accent

please see the discussions on the talk pages and justify your actions there. mnewmanqc (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Bible/Biblical gloss

Hello. Re Bible gloss/Biblical gloss: as you know, English is not my first language, but I sense – perhaps wrongly – a distinction bible (adj.) 'pertaining to the Bible itself' : biblical 'described in the Bible'. Thus, Bible translation or Bible society, but Biblical studies and Biblical canon; thus, I'd rather say Bible gloss 'gloss in the Bible'. Is my sense right or wrong?

Anyway: one way or another, the title is still inadequate, because the article (which is rather unfocused) also covers glosses in Hebrew/Jewish religious scriptures, which do not always fall under the term "Biblical" (or at least, it is not always politically correct term to use). That leaves us with rather unwieldy choices – Scripture gloss? Theological gloss? Or... just leave it as it is... Not mine or yours field of expertise, anyway. No such user (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't think I've even heard "Bible gloss", and can't really explain why it sounds wrong. Sounds like a single gloss for the whole Bible, maybe. Yes, "scriptural gloss" would probably be better. — kwami (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia dialect

Please reverse this move Philadelphia dialect > Philadelphia accent. There was no discussion of your action. The article covers not only phonetics, but also lexicon and could very easily have a syntax section. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

An accent is basically a sub-sub-dialect, which AFAICT is what we have here. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that distinction? I have never heard it in 30 years. Accent deals solely with pronunciation, not vocabulary or differences in grammar, etc:

ac·cent noun ˈakˌsent 1. a distinctive mode of pronunciation of a language, esp. one associated with a particular nation, locality, or social class. "a strong German accent" synonyms: pronunciation, intonation, enunciation, articulation, inflection, tone, modulation, cadence, timbre, manner of speaking, delivery; More

If the article were solely on phonetics I wouldn't have an objection. But it is on all aspects of the dialect. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I can find it. My stuff's all boxed up. The definition I saw within dialectology was a regional variety not distinct enough to be called a separate dialect, and not restricted to phonology.

A generic dictionary isn't much good for linguistics. Their example suggests that only a foreign accent counts, and according to the dictionary, love is a language.

However, there certainly are refs which support your POV. Crystal's dict defines it as, The cumulative auditory effect of those features of pronunciation which identify where a person is from, regionally or socially. The linguistics literature emphasizes that the term refers to pronunciation only, and is thus distinct from dialect, which refers to grammar and vocabulary as well, almost exactly what you said, and contradicts my dialectology source. However, AFAIK no-one says people speak different dialects just because one says soda and the other says pop. It seems to take more than a bit of differing vocab. Also, phonology is part of grammar, and the retention or elimination of phonological distinctions is included under "accent" (some accents preserve a voiceless phoneme /ʍ/, rhotic accents, etc).

Weird, the Routledge dict gives a similar definition to what yours did: Idiosyncratic pronunciation of a foreign language, especially due to the articulatory or phonotactic characteristics of one’s native language, as if there were no such thing as RP or GA. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but I guess the bottom line at this point is I need to request a move back? (I see from other comments you are not an admin now?) If so, do you mind if I do so as an unopposed move? And for dialects, what matters is a confluence of isoglosses. And you will find a confluences of isoglosses that differentiates a Philly dialect from a Pittsburg or Baltimore dialect within the Midlands dialect area. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Given you are not objecting I will request a speedy move. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see with your dialectology source is that it seems to be at odds with COMMONNAME. I would be willing to argue that pronunciation vs syntax and word-choice is probably the defining common distinction between an accent and dialect, as the above dictionary definition reflects. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorect information

Cyrillic is an officially used alphabet, but in practice it is mainly used in Republika Srpska, whereas in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina mainly Latin is used.

Please read atricle 10: [report] "...a službena pisma su latinica i ćirilica." (...and official letters Latin and Cyrillic.) Pogled u nebo (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an issue for the talk page. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why did you lose your administrator status? Kirothereaper (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A move discussion was properly closed as 'move'. One of the people who had opposed the move got upset and reverted it. I restored the move as it was closed (the proper way to revert a closed move would be to reopen it, as eventually happened). Turns out I used my admin powers when restoring the move, though I wasn't aware of it at the time. When it went up for ANI, I thought wanting to desysop someone for requiring proper procedure for reverting a closed decision was so silly that I didn't take it seriously: I posted what happened and then forgot about it. One of those involved in revoking my adminship gave that as a reason: if I couldn't be bothered to defend myself, I didn't deserve to be an admin, though that wasn't supposed to be a reason for desysoping. I still think it's ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bad Move Warning

That was completely your move [10]. You, without discussion or consensus as you have done time and time again, made a unilateral move of Yuchi to Yuchi people (), and couldn't be bothered to fix double redirects, or notice that you'd move the article to a nonsense title, etc. The other editor, User:RHaworth cleaned it up. The warning was absolutely appropriate. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I second the request to make use of the suggested move process on the talk page when moving articles about languages and ethnic groups. Usually articles are located where they are located because someone put them there, their reasoning deserves to be heard so that titles can be based on consensus. It does take more time, true. But there is no deadline.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is inappropriate to warn someone about moving an article while a move discussion is in progress when there is no move discussion at all. That's just idiotic, unless you think that if you throw enough shit, some of it will stick.

Last I heard, consensus was that the language should be at X language, and the people at X people (or just the plural). I will continue to assume this is the consensus: If these moves are so controversial, why does no-one ever contest them? As for the double rd's, which seems to be why you are actually upset, we have bots to clean them up. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Yuchi people. Where is the move discussion for this specific article? You didn't propose the move, you didn't discuss it with anyone, and you didn't gain consensus. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Plenty of your moves are contested Kwami, and many people have asked you this in the past, and you should be able to tell which moves have a high likelihood of being contested (e.g. articles maintained by editors who have objected in the past) and which are completely unlikely to. The general consensus in a wikiproject does not necessarily override local consensus that may establish exceptions for particular languages/peoples. The only way to know with certainty if the general consensus does apply to a particular title is to make a discussion and achieve consensus. I also dont find the double redirect-issue to be very significant, I must admit. But I do think that the principle of using discussions to achieve move consensus is fairly important.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If people contested or reverted these moves, you'd have a point. But they don't. So where's the controversy? The fact that they are uncontested demonstrates local consensus. We have a couple editors like Uyvsdi who issue nonsensical warnings on behalf of unnamed others, but where are the ones who are actually upset by the move? — kwami (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have quarreled with you about them in the past, and a certain other editor recently left after a verbal altercation with myself which was exacerbated by stress from dealing with your moves and some double redirects. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean Skookum? That was about COMMONNAME and ENGVAR -- that is, about something actually substantial -- not about DAB. And as far as I can remember, you've never quarreled with me over anything so petty.

What actually seems to be the problem above is the cleanup. I'd be happy to do that myself if the moving admin notified me when the move was done, but I'm sure the admin can do that without Uyvsdi's help. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think it was a combination of common name and Dab and the fact that he doesnt like being responded to in the same aggressive tone he uses with others.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a consensus about how ethnic groups should be named, the following was created in an incredibly drawn out process in which you were actively involved: Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) (formerly located: here. The final sentence was included for your benefit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Why would you link to the guideline to support your warning, when I was following the guideline to begin with? That's crazy. You think the Yuchi article is "widely edited"? Excluding bots and trivial edits like interlinks and spelling corrections, that article has been edited only three times this year, each time by you, and they were pretty minor edits. You're making this into a joke. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If moves are unlikely to be contested, what's the harm in filing a WP:RM and waiting a week? There's no urgency, especially for something this benign. You've now seen that your assumptions about what is non-controversial are not really correct, and at least three of your moves have been hopelessly nonsensical move-targets (a null paren-set?) needing additional work by others to get to anything following any standard. Slow down. Let discussions happen (or quietly observe that nobody complains and smile to yourself that you were right all along but now undercutting those who might complain later). DMacks (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because I'd have to keep track of them, that's why. So no, I will not. You want to take something which should take 15 seconds and turn it into a week- or month-long affair. That's ridiculous for uncontroversial moves like these. No-one has objected to calling the article "Yuchi people". There's been not so much as a peep on the article talk page. The parentheses were merely a stop-gap measure because the name suggested by the guideline was unavailable. They went together with deletion requests at the target name so that the move could be completed. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is it's a stop-gap measure that still requires at least as much (but actually more) additional work by others than simply reversing a redirect or whatever possibly requires this out-of-process workflow of your design. And in the mean time looks silly and can lead to breakage of inbound links. With some editors already complaining about circumventing consensus-building, please don't also cause simple process-problems for those who are not opposing your goals. There's even a specific short-cut process for reversing a redirect via page-move/speedy-delete. DMacks (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. I've never heard of that. Could you link me to the template? — kwami (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

{{db-move}} is the tag, Check the docs about what parameters to use...the resulting red-box has links automatically pre-set for an admin to do the voodoo. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was moved to Yuchi people ()—hence the warning—and User:RHaworth had to clean up the bad move. The guideline is based on WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups's conclusion that there are multiple acceptable ways to name ethnic groups, including simply the groups' name ("Elbonian" as the example), so the stable article was fine prior to the move. Additionally you created a two dab disambiguation page, when there's obviously a primary topic. I don't know why you persist in creating these, since every language article and every ethnic article links to each other (or should). If you want to move ethnic group articles, propose and discuss the move, and gain consensus. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

See the above. The full move was to "Yuchi people", which is completely uncontroversial. And no, there obviously not a primary topic: when we got consensus on the guideline, that consensus was that neither the people nor the language had primacy over the other. So no, I will not do that, because I'm already following consensus. If you want to change the consensus, then open discussion on the guideline talk page. We could move Germans to "German" and all the rest. (That's been established consensus for many years now, so there might be a lot of people that need convincing, but if you can do that, hey, more power to you.) Meanwhile, however, I will continue to follow the established consensus as settled in the guideline. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, there's a primary topic. Of the over 100 links to "Yuchi," all of them refer to the ethnic group not the language. The way you would have left things, those articles would all link to a dab page instead of an article. The language page gets less than 57% of the traffic of the ethnic group page. I'm not suggesting the language isn't important; however, the people who created the language are the primary topic that most readers are looking for. Obviously Latin language is primary over Latins (Italic tribe), so there isn't a one-sized-fits-all standard for every ethnic group and language pairing; however, in this case, the Yuchi people are primary. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

If the language were at "Yuchi", it would probably get more hits than the ethnicity. That's not a valid way of determining the primary topic. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why I examined the incoming links. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

And if the language had been at "Yuchi", then the incoming links would be for the language. Again, that doesn't mean anything. These arguments seldom have a clear answer, which is why we agreed that neither should be accorded primary status. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Incoming links for "Yuchi" — you can see precisely what is being referred to in each of the over 100 incoming links. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, you can. But what does that have to do with anything, unless you're assuming the writers of those articles were too careless to verify that their links were correct? — kwami (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Until your move, the links were fine, and you can see exactly what the writers intended to link to, which is very obvious... Yuchi Indians, Yuchi people, Yuchi tribe, etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, you can, but what does that have to do with anything? — kwami (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It demonstrates the primary topic — what people are trying to look for/link to. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

No, it demonstrates that people link to the article that they want to link to. Unless you think they pay no attention to where the links actually go? Even if that were so, it could be because wikignomes clean up bad links. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The 100+ incoming links refer to the ethnic group (a couple refer to other things, but not the language), clearly demonstrating a primary topic. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You've just "proven" the opposite: There are 600 links to "Yuch language", so that is clearly the primary topic. Therefore we should move the language article to "Yuchi". — kwami (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that almost every single link to Yuchi language is due to because of its listing in the widely used "Template:List of primary language families," not a link in an article. Other links are from the lesser common "Template:Native American tribes in Oklahoma." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

LaksDargwa languages

Hi Kwami. If you are going to nominate articles/pages for speedy deletion, please complete the job with an appropriate CSD criterion. I would assume you are generally aware of this process. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious. It has to everyone else. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Then the right criterion should be obvious too, n'est-ce pas? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo Q-v small St Petersburg color.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo Q-v small St Petersburg color.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rongorongo R-a color.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo R-a color.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo Q-r Small St Petersburg.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo Q-r Small St Petersburg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo N-a Small Vienna (color).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo N-a Small Vienna (color).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo L Reimiro 2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo L Reimiro 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo K-r Small London (color).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo K-r Small London (color).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:R edge, Smithsonian A129773-0, from negative 92-9326.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:R edge, Smithsonian A129773-0, from negative 92-9326.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ra, Smithsonian A129773-0, from negative 31150C.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ra, Smithsonian A129773-0, from negative 31150C.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo C-b Mamari color.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo C-b Mamari color.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Aragonese dialects

You have deleted (by making them redirects) the pages Western Aragonese and Eastern Aragonese. In addition, apparently you haven't moved the contents of those pages to any other page. Can you tell me the reason? Jotamar (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved the content to Aragonese dialects, which is no more than a stub itself. They were mostly just names w no content, & no-one working on em. I kept any articles worth keeping. Maybe when the main article is taken seriously, we can think about splitting em off again. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. You moved the contents some time before and that confused me. Jotamar (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese phonology

In Vietnamese, the vowel /u/ becomes [ʊ] before /k, ŋ/, but it's not written in Wikipedia. 198.105.122.45 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine to add it, especially if you have a source.— kwami (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to find this source. But Vietnamese people pronounce always like that. 198.105.122.45 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's such a reasonable change that I doubt anyone will challenge you. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Those () pages yet again

You seem to have forgotten that when you use the {{delete}} tag you are expected to provide a reason. On the plus side, I am pleased to see that none of your recent () pages have had incoming links when they were tagged for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Should be obvious. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Cappadocian a mixed language

Is this generally accepted? — Lfdder (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's given as one of the few clear examples of a mixed language in Thomason and Kaufman, which was well received when it came out, and I haven't seen them seriously challenged, though I haven't been following recently. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

All right, thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

'Nyanganyatjara' is not an alternative name for 'Ngaanyatjara'

Hi Kwami, I just noticed that you've renamed the page on Ngaanyatjara to 'Nyanganyatjara' and state that these are alternative names for the one variety of the Western Desert language. This is not correct, these two names refer to distinct varieties of the WDL, Ngaanyatjara spoken at Warburton and surrounds, Nyanganyatjara spoken further west, from Cundeelee up to around Leonora and Laverton. Names for different varieties of the WDL are commonly based on the demonstrative meaning roughly 'this' or 'this one', combined with the comitative suffix /-tjara/. Here the demonstratives are /ngaanya/ and /nyanganya/ and define these as being different varieties, *not* alternative names for the one variety. A reference that mentions this issue is at <http://archive.org/stream/rosettaproject_pjt_detail-1/rosettaproject_pjt_detail-1_djvu.txt>. cheers, Dougg (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Error in my source. AIATSIS backs you up. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast, I see it's all fixed. Was your source Ethnologue? I saw the same thing there and emailed them about getting it fixed. Dougg (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably, unless Dixon has the same. I'm trying to support all the names in the world that are in basic sources, and since there's so much to do, I only check with AIATSIS when something's obviously wrong. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that Dixon 2002 you're referring to? Dougg (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Not finding it there though. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Crusade against Finno-Ugric

Hi Kwamikagami, could you please explain your recent crusade against mentioning Finno-Ugric languages, for example, these [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] edits of yours? They look a bit problematic (certainly unexplained). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric has been largely abandoned in recent classifications, as reflected in our language articles. I was cleaning up articles that slipped through when we decided on the change a few years ago, or which have since been edited with outdated sources (like using the EB for Hungarian). — kwami (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Outdated according to who? There are thousands of recent academic works which use the term "Finno-Ugric". The main department of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences also has "Finno-Ugric" in its name. Please, explain (preferably supported by reliable sources) why do you think that the term "Finno-Ugric" was abandoned. BTW: EB is of course RS, just read WP:RS in detail. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the consensus of WP editors who know what they're talking about. It was a surprise to me too, but they made a convincing case. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The theory according to which the "Finno-Ugric" term is abadoned sounds nonsense to me, but let's continue the discussion where we started: Talk:Hungarian_language#Native_speakers Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

When you're willing to start making rational arguments. Otherwise it's a waste of my time. Or maybe you could bring others into the discussion. — kwami (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be joking, right? I am not the one who does not have any rational arguments. But, please, dear Kwamikagami, do tell me which of my arguments were irrational? The one in which (1) I have cited several recent linguistic scholarly books from mainstream publishers (Cambridge University Press, Indiana University Press, Wiley Blackwell, Springer, etc.), to demonstrate that the terminology "Finno-Ugric" is widely used? Or the one above (2) in which I highlighted that the main department of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences also has "Finno-Ugric" in its name (BTW: Hungarian is the largest Finno-Ugric language with one of the strongest Finno-Ugric researches, so this is quite relevant). Or the one (3) in which I asked you to point me to this mysterious consensus you keep talking about, but fail to show where it is? Or the one (4) in which I said that no past consensus can be forced to future editors, especially, if it neglects a mainstream terminology supported by a wide range of academic sources? Or the one (5) in which I argued that instead of cherry-picking one or two sources of your choice regarding the number of native Hungarian speakers, we should provide an interval estimate with the lowest and the highest numbers that can be found in reputable scholarly works? Or which one? Unfortunately, so far you have failed to answer any of my arguments above and yet, you are the one who accuses me of being irrational? Please, be reasonable, do tell me your arguments and assume good faith: I will be open to your point of view, as well. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Finno-Ugric has been largely abandoned in recent classifications..." Well you keep removing it and it's references without appropriate justification, certainly will became abandoned in WP articles. --Csendesmark (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't my idea. It's not my area. But it was the consensus after an involved discussion, and involves many other articles. WP should be up-to-date: That's one of the advantages of being a wiki. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Where is this prior discussion please? μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It was years ago. It's probably been archived somewhere. But just look at the stability of the Uralic, Finno-Ugric, and other articles: There's your consensus. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not a source and lack of edits are no proof. I have Bjorn Collinder's three volume encyclopedic work, Gyula Decsy's (not so reliable), the Routledge compendium, and Angelo Marcantonio, who's the only serious skeptic, and Vajda's refutation of her nonsense. There are over 1,000 PFU reconstructions and about 200 proto-ralic ones at most. You made the edits. You are responsible for justifying them. You mentioned the prior discussion. Please provide the link to the discussion if you are going to reference it and rely on it to support your edits against mine and Csendesmrks's and Koertefa's doubts. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP is of course a source for consensus on WP, and lack of edits are considered consensus. That's how things work here. It would also be ridiculous for articles to be contradicted by the main articles they depend on. Now, if you want to change consensus, you're welcome to do so, but I would suggest doing so on the Uralic or Wikiproject talk pages. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, μηδείς, for your comments, and I fully agree with you that Kwamikagami should justify his edits. Dear Kwamikagami: you wrote "WP is of course a source for consensus on WP, and lack of edits are considered consensus" according the who? Because, even according to you WP is not source, see [25]. You keep making ex cathedra statements without any sources or references. That's definitely not how things should work on WP. Please, try supporting your claims by evidences (sources, website of reputable organizations, WP guidelines, etc.). Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: It is especially strange that you keep referring to this mysterious "consensus", when you were the one who deleted a massive number of "Finno-Ugric" terms, often with their sources. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know how consensus works on WP, then perhaps you should read up on it rather than asking me, since you don't believe me anyway. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that I do not believe you? Just because I disagree with you on one or two issues does not mean that I disagree with you on everything. As I wrote on the talk page of the Hungarian language article: I have tried to find this involved discussion you keep referring to on several archived Talk pages, but could not find it so far. So, please, link it. I would like to read it, in order to better understand your actions. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know where it is. It's been years.

You've made dubious edits like deleting multiply-referenced statements with the claim they're unreferenced, so I haven't been taking you very seriously. I also don't have a keyboard, and have to use the mouse, so writing more than a few words is a real slog. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? When did I do such things? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Haven't kept track. You also started off arguing with some very unprofessional sources, which didn't create a good impression either. Anyway, you might have better luck with a general discussion, especially since it's so difficult for me to type answers. — kwami (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I have ever done such thing (hope not). As for the other issue, what is "unprofessional" is a bit subjective. I think you refer to some sources of mine which were non-linguistic and I used them in the discussion about the number of native speakers. BTW: I found several linguistic sources and suggested an estimate that we should use, please, see this and tell your opinion. As for the "Finno-Ugric" issue, I am going to raise it on the Talk page of the Uralic languages article. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: May I ask why don't you have a keyboard? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It got finicky and then failed. And I just threw one away! — kwami (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Re this edit: when you use a {{db-move}} tag, a) the tag is placed before the redirect and b) the first parameter is the page which you want moved on to the page where you are placing the tag. I hope I have carried out your wishes correctly. I have preserved all the history of the article and its talk page. Merging histories in this way can cause minor chaos but I cannot think of another solution. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's the destination I wanted, though I was thinking the page histories would be kept separate. I don't suppose that's anything that can be undone? If not, it's old enough it probably doesn't matter. — kwami (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be possible to pick out an appropriate page from the history of Talk:Quechuan languages and copy&paste it to Talk:Quechuan languages/Archive 2. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

References section

If you add <ref>-tags in your language articles, don't forget the new section
== References ==
<references />
(only one of many, many examples) Thanks --Frze (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No need. A bot will take care of it. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Himachali"?

We seem to be missing ISO 639:him from ISO 639-2, do we want to point it someplace? — Lfdder (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So I'm scraping ISO 639 redirects to populate the list in Module:ISO 639 name/data and after about 5,000 that was the only miss. Quite amazing. — Lfdder (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done all of them now, only these two new codes were missing:

• pnl
• sty

— Lfdder (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those. I created rd's. However, checking your list, I see [him] and [hmn] were mixed up. Do you think they're the only ones? Was there a problem because [him] had no link ? — kwami (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I must've accidentally switched those 2 around. — Lfdder (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a few of the spurious languages don't have entries , but only a few . — kwami (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also a problem with [ebu] in the list . — kwami (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

["yol"] = "Forth and Bargy": that's not two names , but a single name with 'and' in it . Same with ["tch"] = "Turks and Caicos Creole" and ["mdz"] = "Suruí do Pará". — kwami (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

xti to xtl and mce are wrong . Are you using WP rather than ISO names ? Because WP names are not stable . sls is also not ISO. — kwami (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I pulled most of these from ISO 639 redirects. WP names often differ, so I thought it'd be better to start off this way. I'll have to go thru the list to replace the dialect redirects. — Lfdder (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WP names will just change if the article is moved , merged , or split . Now , there are probably a few cases where the ISO name doesn't link to the correct article , but it would be good to catch those at this end. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ["cmt"] = "Tsotsitaal and Camtho" and ["fly"] = "Tsotsitaal and Camtho": Here's a case where the 'and' really does link two names , actually two languages . — kwami (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed those, thanks. Do you think it'd be better to just have the ISO name for all? Bearing in mind that these will be used in language icon templates (like {{ab icon}}) and categories for {{lang}}, etc. — Lfdder (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced all the entries with their ISO names and added another mode to the script here. Let me know what you think. — Lfdder (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a question for the language project . I don't use those much . ISO will be more stable , and people are not likely to use the obscure languages we conflate but that SIL has determined need separate scripture . On the other hand , where we differ for major languages we may have good reason after long discussion .

Maybe we should start with ISO and instruct people to change where needed . I'll also ask Potato Bot to use your table . — kwami (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the parentheticals could be used for linking but not display ?

That'd make sense. — Lfdder (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The following are integral names : ["aig"] = "Antigua and Barbuda Creole English", "Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language", and most of the country entries .

What do you mean? That we can't append 'language'? — Lfdder (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know why they were ochre . — kwami (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

ah, it's just the syntax highlighter choking on the list. 'and' is a keyword in Lua. — Lfdder (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Also , what happens when a code like csc has 3 entries ? — kwami (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to figure that out. — Lfdder (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Something to think about : when an ISO code is retired , what happens to any lang templates that use it ? — kwami (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They'd have to be migrated. We've not got lang tpls for obscure langs though, so this seems very unlikely. — Lfdder (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison btn new and old here. Checkboxes are bugged. — Lfdder (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do the "expected" values come from ? I wouldn't expect them . — kwami (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

All the ISO 639 name templates, e.g. {{ISO 639 name fr}}. — Lfdder (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, some of those are really off. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue numbers not reliable

Ethnologue is not a reliable source of numbers of speakers for languages. It is not a valid academic source on languages in general. In the numbers for the Slavey language of northern Canada, for example, its total number for the northern dialect listed is much less that the sum of L1 speakers listed. Its numbers are also substantially less than those listed in both the 2006 and 2011 Canadian censuses. I have removed it from this particular article, but I would advise not relying on it for information on the status of languages. 173.238.65.210 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree in general , but why should the 2006 census be more reliable than the 2011? Your link also failed verification .

As for the "totals", the different numbers are from different sources and different dates . — kwami (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

() pages

I will no bother to delve into the history but surely you remember when a () page got deleted and an whole clutch of redirects to it - some that you had created - got deleted in consequence. Will you please fix special:whatLinsHere/Melanau–Kajang languages () before requesting the move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not: They'll just get moved back, so that would be a waste of time . If you don't want to fix things correctly , then don't fix them at all . Someone elsie will take care of it . — kwami (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What you could do is leave a redirect so the links don't get broken . Then a bot will do the rest. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Tweants (dialect)

Hi Kwamikagami,

Could you please provide the reason for the name change from Tweants to Tweants dialect? Woolters (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just clarification . — kwami (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please exlpain what this clarifies, then? And if you find it necessary to keep the tag (dialect), could you then please add it to every existing language? After all, for instance, English is a West-Germanic dialect as much as German and Dutch. As you might gather, I really do not see the need for it. Speakers of this speech variety refer to it as either "Tweants" or "Plat". Woolters (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Faked?

What do you mean by "faked"? I got the numbers from Ethnologue. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the incorrect dates and jumped to that conclusion . (There's a lot of falsifying refs with some of these languages .) In any case , we use that ref for the larger languages . Some of the E17 data goes back to 1961, and some isn't dated at all . — kwami (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages

• Hello Kwamikagami. Please see my comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, starting with "hello, I used to be Ling.Nut". If you wanna template the Wikiproject, I won't stop you. But I am disappointed. • Serviceable†Villain 12:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is inactive, so a template is appropriate. Whether to do anything more is another question. Lfdder said we're turning it into a redirect , but I don't know who decided that . — kwami (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm not gonna argue. Do what you will. I won't comment, on any forum, unless required to do so by an admin (which is vanishingly unlikely) Good luck in all things. • Serviceable†Villain 13:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

[26] ?

It was a mixture of good and bad edits and I wasn't going to sort them out . — kwami (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

But I did, at least I tried. No such user (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani and Uzbek languages

Hi Kwami. Thanks for replying to me.

I guess Ethnologue figures aren't reliable for the languages in question? Anyway, could you please help me out?

I'm noticing a lot of contradictions in some articles. For example, in the Turkic languages page, it says that Turkish makes up 43% of all Turkic languages spoken around the World, followed by Azerbaijani at 15%. So in that article, Azerbaijani is apparently a more popular language than Uzbek. But in the pages for the Azerbaijani and Uzbek languages, the figures suggest that the Uzbek language is actually more popular than Azerbaijani, not the other way around.

Could you please help me make these articles consistent? Pretty please? :-)

I'm now confused myself, to be honest. Now I don't know if Azerbaijani is more popular than Uzbek, or vice versa.

By the way, I found this recently published map from Columbia University's Gulf/2000 Project website: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/TurkicPeoplesLangs_lg.png

Apparently these are the latest figures. They somehow make the figures on Wikipedia look exaggerated. Do you think we should use this map as a reference? Then again, do you think Wikipedia would even permit such thing?

Looking forward to your reply, Kwami. By the way, it's nice to meet you. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to type without a keyboard , so I'll be brief . The problem with Uzbek is that maybe a third of the country , maybe half , speak Persian (Tajik), but the government counts them as Uzbek-speakers . Similarly Ankara pretends Kurds are "Mountain Turks ". Meanwhile , Turkish Kurds are shifting to Turkish , but they try to hide the extent . So it's very difficult to get good numbers . If you read Izady's footnote , you'll see he thinks his Uzbek figure is inflated by 20–25%. Correct for that , and it may be less than Azeri . — kwami (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Kwami. I have a feeling there are more Azeri-speakers than there are Uzbek-speakers around the World -- based on most of the figures I saw on the internet -- which would mean the Azerbaijani language is the second most popular Turkic language, behind Turkish. Too bad we'll probably never know for sure, since some figures are known to be inflated, as you said. Once again, thanks for taking the time to reply. I guess I'm back to square one now, LOL. :-P --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That will probably change, however. Azeri is shifting to Persian in Iran, while Persian is shifting to Uzbek in Uzbekistan. — kwami (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What about the difference between North and South Azeri? --JorisvS (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea — kwami (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WARNING

Edit-warring and making bad faith claims of falsifying sources is grounds for being blocked . Please stop. --Nug (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Knock off the bullshit, Nug. You're the one falsifying sources to win an argument you can't win on its merits . — kwami (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop behaving like a WP:DICK, it's simply an English translation from the original German image. --Nug (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And I had to fight with you to even get that , because you were falsifying the map !

Actually , it was originally Turkish , not German , and covered Ural-Altaic . Talk about dated . — kwami (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How was the map was falsified? The image was derived from german language map File:Linguistic_map_of_the_Uralic_languages.png, which is used in the German Wikipedia article Uralische Sprachen. --Nug (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't you remember when you changed the map to better reflect your POV ? If I thought you knew what you were doing , I'd accuse you of fraud . — kwami (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the map to accommodate your objection: "worse map: it makes extra room for Yukaghir, which is not Uralic", by removing the Yukaghir areas, what's your problem with that? --Nug (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fraud ! Are you truly that clueless ? — kwami (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Nug (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Cape Verdean Portuguese

Hi Kwami. Please see Talk Page - see if I have managed to make you understand what I am trying to get at. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens

There is a new issue with hyphens here. Interested in joining the discussion? --JorisvS (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Words without rhymes

At Talk:List_of_English_words_without_rhymes, I have questions for "vuln" and "poem". I've identified one possible addition to the rhymeless list, and one word that may not belong on the rhymeless list after all. Wiwaxia (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi language/Panjabi dialects

Should we move either so it's spelt the same? — Lfdder (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I wasn't able to do so, and didn't want to leave another set of empty parentheses. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've db-move tagged Punjabi dialects -- as well as Languages of Syria 12h ago (doesn't look like anyone's paying much attention to the db-move queue). — Lfdder (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been tagging them because one editor making the moves fails to leave a redirect, so all the existing redirects would get bot deleted. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive note

Most of the page history for Sept. 30 will be preserved in Archive 23.