Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:51, 19 October 2024

Archives

2004 Aug – 2005 Nov 2005 Dec – 2006 Jan 2006 Feb–May 2006 Jun – 2007 Dec 2008 Jan–Sep 2008 Oct–Dec 2009 Jan–Mar 2009 Apr–Aug 2009 Sep – 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May–Sep 2010 Oct–Dec 2011 Jan–May 2011 Jun–Aug 2011 Sep–Dec 2012 Jan–Apr 2012 May–Jul 2012 Jul–Sep 2012 Oct–Dec 2013 Jan–Mar 2013 Mar–Jun 2013 Jul–Sep 2013 Oct–Dec 2014 Jan–Mar 2014 Apr–Dec 2015 Jan–Jun 2015 Jul–Dec 2016 Jan – 2018 Jun 2018 Jul – 2019 Jun 2019 Jun – 2020 2021 2022 2023 most recent (automated)

Words and quotations:

Spaghetti Weevil

Previous words:

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

RE:NATO Phonetic Alphabet Edit

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

Received Pronunciation - Help!

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

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

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

Happy New Year Kwamikagami!

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

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

Alor–Pantar languages

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

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

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

Unhabited areas in maps

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

Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{World writing systems}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

baleine

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

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

Disagreement over editing on the "Serbian language" article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

secondaire

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Hindi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article titles

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

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

Yolngu sign language

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

Languages of Nepal

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

re: Sicilian Sign Language

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

Speedy deletion of duplicate minor planets lists

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

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

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

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

The following pages are the source of that content, and can now be deleted:

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

These pages simply included two blocks of 500 and can also be deleted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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