Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) at 01:27, 13 February 2014 (→Turkish language map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Words and quotations:

"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."

Previous words:

• awkwardnessful
• anti–zombie-fungus fungus
• comb-shaped people

Formatting at Sampi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Ontario

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

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

Hellenic languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Koya People

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

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

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

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

Latin Europe

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

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

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

Turkish language map

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

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