User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 33

Happy New Year, Kwamikagami!

Happy New Year!

Kwamikagami,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's since been replaced by better images from Hubble, so no longer needed. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg

[boilerplate notification]

Just notifying you as a courtesy after see your post on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy, but I made that comment because I don't contest deletion. When I uploaded that file, there were no PD equivalents. Now there are, and the (c) file is no longer needed, indeed is not in use on any Wiki. Therefore there's no issue with deleting it. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Same sex marriage

Why did you revert my second edit which was NOT in the lede it was in the history section. The section mentions Nero and some others from early history the person to sign the first same sex marriage legalization merits inclusion. Rote1234 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You implied if Jim Obergefell was mentioned, we should mention Queen Beatrix as well. But we don't mention Jim Obergefell. Also, Beatrix's signature was a formality. If you're now going to compare her to Nero, she didn't actually do anything. We don't mention who wrote or sponsored the legislation, or even mention the first SSM twenty years earlier. So yes, Beatrix's involvement is trivia. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The LGBT community deserves to know the leaders that were involved in such a historical achievement. But if you allow mention of Nero, then other historical same sex marriages from centuries ago should merit mention as well.Rote1234 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why not mention the leaders involved? Did Beatrix initiate or champion this legislation, that she's one of the leaders?

You can take it to Talk. Two editors have judged this to be trivia. If the broader response agrees with you, it will be restored. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits?

🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Because you're introducing template errors. — kwami (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pron-en

Template:Pron-en has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Lianzhou language

Came across Lianzhou language. Could do with a review and some better categories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to 'dialect' because there's no indication it's not mutually intelligible with other varieties of Qin-Lian Yue, and we use 'dialect' for other varieties at that level. If the author can provide a ref that it's not MI, great! We'll be able to request an ISO code. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox language

Hi, I believe your last edits to Template:Infobox language may be responsible for 200+ articles appearing in CAT:MISSFILE. It appears to be an issue with the map2 image. It's late and I haven't looked deeper but thought I'd mention before signing off before anyone starts fixing by just removing the images. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. A pipe got lost in the copy-over. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool - just running a null edit run on the cat and it's clearing out fine so looks like no other issue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

unified English spelling

Well, IUPAC usage is indeed aluminium, but it is also caesium, for what that's worth. And etymologically speaking, the oxide is alumina, so the metal should be aluminum (just like ceria → cerium, but lanthana → lanthanum). :) Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Point. But we don't say *sodum. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Soda and potash are carbonates, not oxides (which is part of why they are not on Lavoisier's 1789 list of elements), so they are different cases. Or at least, that's what they meant around the time when Davy named them: our article calls K₂O potash too now. Anyway I feel like the point of Unified English spelling was to have some kind of informed reasoning for preferring one spelling over another, rather than to create spellings that never existed. Otherwise, I should like to borrow Russian magnij (don't have Cyrillic on my phone) as "magnium", which is what Davy named it, to avoid the Mn-Mg confusion. And fix the fact that H and O have the names that would make more sense for each other. And change the suffixes of helium, germanium, selenium, and tellurium to -on (as was done for Si). :) Double sharp (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Incidentally, I believe the history of the Czech element names might interest you. There were attempts at mass calquing in the XIX century, but aside from the most common elements, they did not survive.

One day I'd like to expand chemical elements in East Asian languages with history as well, but can't find the sources I remember seeing for it. Okay, I only have seen much for Chinese and Japanese, but some expansion is better than none. Double sharp (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be worth doing, I think. The Czech stuff too. I imageine there was quite a bit of calquing in the early days. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We do have an article on the Czech stuff (quite short though): Czech chemical nomenclature. Saving the link here so I know where to find it again. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, there's not only variation in English for element names. The German de:Liste der chemischen Elemente always surprises me a little bit because it is closer to the Latin forms – I myself remember learning it with k and z for c often, e.g. Silizium, Kalzium, Zäsium, Aktinium, Wismut, Jod (but on de.wp it is given as Silicium, Calcium, Caesium, Actinium, Bismut, Iod). Personally I fail to see the point, as in Spanish one still writes escandio, in Italian afnio, in Polish ren and iryd, in Turkish tulyum, and it does not seem to cause undue confusion. And that's not even getting into reasonably common languages for chemical scholarship that use different scripts altogether (Russian, Chinese, Japanese spring to mind). But well, it is not my native language or even the language I write chemistry stuff in, and thus not really my business to give an opinion, just my business to describe. :)

(And in Portuguese, it's also escândio. But some names are different between European and Brazilian Portuguese, see pp. 122–125 of the Portuguese translation of the IUPAC Green Book.) Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Something interesting I found on the chemical elements in East Asian languages page is the recent reforms for Korean (e.g. using Koreanisations of sodium and potassium since 2014, rather than natrium and kalium). Like I said, when I have time, I'll do some research. :)

P.S. vi.wp has yterbi for ytterbium, but en.wikt has ytecbi. Probably another matter of how much to Vietnamise foreign names and words (e.g. Einstein vs Anhxtanh), but I guess the en.wikt list should be checked. Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at variations in the articles of de, es, and it.wp, it appears that there's significant variation in many of the languages commonly used for chemical publications. Not all though: fr, pl, and ja are pretty standardised on this end. For ru, there are a few elements that may vary (iodine, flerovium, tennessine – though flerovium is a case of using yo or not), but most don't. For zh, it is rather a case of two separate standards. Much of it rests on how much to nativise (e.g. Italian kripton vs kripto vs cripto), so like that Vietnamese variation I pointed out above. A Wiktionary appendix, sort of like wikt:Appendix:Planets, would be a nice end goal, but with 118 elements I guess it would start looking incredibly wide. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Danish also has variation in element names: Retskrivningsordbogen gives the spellings litium, karbon, fosfor, klor, krom, kobolt, zirkon(ium), molybdæn, jod, cæsium, tallium, bismut (formerly vismut), but Dansk kemisk nomenklaturudvalg gives lithium, carbon, phosphor, chlor, chrom, cobalt, zirconium, molybden, iod, caesium, thallium, bismuth. Burzuchius (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, the Scandinavian languages are a major blank in my knowledge. :)

Turkish Wikipedia has tr:Lavrensiyum, but the Güncel Türkçe Sözlük only recognises lorentiyum. Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: maybe you could help us on this? :D Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! To clarify, do you ask proper sources for the names in Turkish? Nanahuatl (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Yes indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of the elements are not even mentioned in academic sources :/ But the best source, the source that our society follows is this @Double sharp:. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: That's very interesting, thanks for the link to this! (Though I'm unhappy about their 15-element-wide f-block, at least it says Lu and Lr are in group 3. :D)

I'm curious why it doesn't agree with the TDK on Lr, but as demonstrated by my and Burzuchius' posts, it seems to be a completely normal thing to have multiple names in a single language. After all, in English we have multiple standards (aluminium/aluminum), and the same happens in Chinese (硅 vs 矽 for silicon). So, nothing new here. Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

TDK is just a linguistic organization and they sometimes have some differences than the common use. And yeap, some elements just have multiple names/usages (both "mangan" and "manganez" are common for "manganese", for example). Nanahuatl (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: I see, that's interesting (mangan is like German, whereas manganez is like English and French). How seriously is TDK's usage taken in Turkey, in general? And in general, how do you on tr.wp decide what name to use for such cases? Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty common that we use TDK, but in here, it's not the only place that we look for and we try to find "the most common name in the Turkish-language reliable sources". Nanahuatl (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: I see, that's interesting! I guess it works for tr.wp because the differences aren't regional differences, e.g. British vs American English (witness the immense talk page argument on aluminium vs aluminum).

It may interest you that on Chinese Wikipedia these things are implemented by automatic conversion (essentially finding and replacing terms with regional differences). So if you go to the article on silicon, and select 大陆简体 (simplified characters, Mainland China terms), then it will be titled 硅; but if you select 臺灣正體 (traditional characters, Taiwan terms), then it will be titled 矽. And there's four other localisations for Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, and Singapore. A lot of it is done by a built-in conversion table.

Do you by any chance know something about the history of translation of chemical terms into Turkish? I know there were modern chemical treatises published in the late 19th century (still the Ottoman period), but can't find any information on the evolution of the element names. Double sharp (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's all about the lack of standards and sources @Double sharp:, nothing else :D There are more researches and therefore, more sources in China I am sure. I mean, publishing Turkish-language academic articles is a bit pointless since the target is too low, so that leaves us with some challenges.

And for the second issue, I don't think I do. @Harald the Bard: can probably help since it's his field -as far as I know, not mine :D Nanahuatl (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Well yes, there must be a lot more Chinese-language articles than Turkish-language ones, though English dominates scientific publishing these days (per this Symmetry Magazine article, certainly since WW2, and overwhelmingly after the Soviet collapse and the decline of Russian which was then the second; before WW2, French and German were more or less on par with English). Still, your language was apparently used enough for chemical publishing that it was mentioned in a discussion of internationalising chemical nomenclature from 1953, hence my curiosity. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

List of ancestor languages

Hi, Kwami,

if you have time, you could take a quick look at this in case you spot any errors. KR, --Davius (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Davius,

I think "ancestral" might be better as a title. At first I thought maybe it was about the language of people's ancestors.

Some of the links are odd. E.g. 'Classical' and 'Archaic Egyptian' links to Ancient Egypt rather than to Middle and Old Egyptian. (Even though those links are currently redirects to a section of the Egyptian language article, they may someday be developed into articles of their own, so best to link to the redirect.) Likewise, proto-Finnic should link to Proto-Finnic language rather than to Finnic languages.

Since 'Altaic' isn't a clearly defined family, you could shorten the name of the AKJ section to just 'Altaic languages'.

Shouldn't Pahlavi go under 'ancient languages'? It's the same era as Gothic.

Nahuatl should go back to Proto-Nahuan language.

I wonder why Old Chinese is a second entry from Modern Chinese, since it's directly ancestral.

If the point of the list is to give people easy access to our articles on ancestral languages, then I feel you should spend some serious time researching what articles we have available. For example, at Finnic languages, the link to the proto-language is right there in the infobox, so there's no excuse not to have it. Category:Proto-languages may help here.

Best — kwami (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you very much, I will fix those links, I translated the article from one that existed in Spanish, and because there are not so specific links there, the links do not point accurately, but I will take that and the rest of your comments into account. --Davius (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you know a specific source noting that around red dwarfs, the mass needed to clear the neighbourhood can be less than that required to become round?

Other than a calculation (though I guess one could plead WP:CALC on it), because right now Planet#21st century still says objects that fulfill the orbital zone clearance requirement automatically fulfill the roundness requirement and that annoys me because it's not going to be true for red dwarfs. :) Double sharp (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We could say 'around Sun-like stars'. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Create some articles on Bavarian (Boarisch) Wiki

@Kwamikagami Please can you create these car manufacturer articles on Boarisch Wiki since you understand this language as far as I have seen:

• Borgward
• Ford
• Porsche
• Toyota
• Volkswagen

I am a car fanatic and these important car manufacturers are missing on this Wiki. You can create them with short content, how you seek it reasonable. Thank you for your time 188.172.109.247 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No interest in cars, sorry, and I know about 2 words of Bavarian. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami If you have a friend on Bavarian Wiki who understand this language, would you ask him to create. Only these articles which are trending now. Please do this favor for me! HELGAPRV (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Would you ask someone else please? 188.172.109.37 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who I'd ask. You can search for someone there with an interest in cars. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Comox people (temp)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Comox people (temp) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Comox people (temp) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

New names for Dimorphos features

Hi, five new boulders on asteroid Dimorphos were recently named after drums. Can you add these in with their etymology? Thanks. Nrco0e (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I've started. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Ikiribati" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Ikiribati and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Ikiribati until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Burney / I dunno

[start of thread, copied from Serendipodous's talk page] 'Pluto' was one of the top 3 proposed names. Yes, Burney proposed it. So did a lot of other people. I don't remember the source that said that crediting her was mostly optics, but we do have a source that she was the first "outside of the Lowell staff". And that's from Tombaugh himself. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that that's unsourced, one guy's recollection from decades prior is not necessarily a reliable record. It may have been optics, but that would require a citation. Serendi^podous 21:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you comment on it being unsourced, when the other source is also unsourced, and also the recollection of someone decades later. Yes, it would require a citation to say it was optics in the article, which is why I said it on your talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

How can a source be unsourced? I have a source for Burney naming Pluto. I would like to check the source you provided, do you have page numbers? Serendi^podous 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought was odd: you said the source was unsourced, but we don't normally describe them that way -- we instead speak of primary and secondary sources. I don't see all that much difference between Tombaugh writing a book 50 years after the fact and the BBC interviewing Burney 75 years after, though since Tombaugh was a direct witness to the events, as well as being earlier, and not filtered through a reporter, I'd expect his account might be more reliable.

The page number is in the citation. I'll paste the 3 paragraphs about the name to the Pluto talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparent magnitudes of outer moons

Wouldn't help for Miranda or Umbriel, but you can use this form at the MPC for the irregulars. That said, one decimal place is already too much precision: this year, Nereid will vary from 19.1 to 19.4. Double sharp (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami/sandbox#New phonetic alphabet

I wondered the last time I saw it and now wonder again: what's the story behind the very phonetically normal sentence for F? Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, you have the same city 西安 under both H (other suggestions) and X (BNL song). Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Could't think of anything for F, so I took that from George Carlin's ABZ Book. ("What else can you do with fingers?") [The original published in Playboy in the 1960s. Not sure if it's the same in the revised one published on its own.]

Do you have any ideas for F?

Don't mind if both Xi'an and Hsian are listed; they're not being used together. — kwami (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

On thinking about it, F is difficult indeed. Unless you're willing to use Modern Greek transliterations that transliterate phi as f, and hence use something cluster-y like Fthiotida, which might get reduced like phthalate? I'm also amused by the idea of using fhtagn from Lovecraft. :D Double sharp (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Best option I've seen so far. Though no idea how fhtagn is supposed to be pronounced. Not English, of course. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Cthulhu fhtagn and other such phrases and names in Lovecraft's work were, if I'm not mistaken, intended in-universe as approximations to some alien language, literally unpronounceable to humans. So perhaps one should go by its pronunciation on South Park if anything (0:57, presumably Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn), since anything will be a mangling, LOL. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if just /f/, it's still fun to say "F as in fhtagn". — kwami (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one amused by the idea. :D Double sharp (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Aboriginal syllabics: Devanagari comparison

I just wanted to highlight what seemingly in 15 years no one has seen -- there is an error in your comparison PNG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Aboriginal_syllabics#/media/File:Nagari-syllabics.png). the glyph derived from devagari "na" is, in the displayed orientation, not "ne" but "ni". i did not dare to touch the file, so i just came by to inform you. Hyperbaton (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for catching that! — kwami (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi, I don't understand your reverts on List of languages by number of native speakers, Levantine Arabic, Kabyle language, and Bulgarian language.

You wrote "not a valid link" but what is "not valid" with this page? The page says: "Table 3 lists the largest languages of the world in descending order of population of first-language speakers." and later we have the full table ("Table 3. Languages with at least 50 million first-language speakers") a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad with the table. The sign-in had changed, so the link didn't work, and there was no 'statistics' section in the TOC.

As for the individual languages, I don't see any population data for Bulgarian and Kabyle, which are only listed as between 1M and 1B. Perhaps the new edition is still being rolled out. Levantine Arabic, however, has just started showing data, so I'll revert myself on that one. — kwami (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kwamikagami, Bulgarian has "6,200,000 in Bulgaria, all users. L1 users: 5,000,000 in Bulgaria (2021). L2 users: 1,200,000 (2011). Total users in all countries: 7,745,340 (as L1: 6,541,540; as L2: 1,203,800)." and Kabyle has: "6,410,000 in Algeria (2022). Total users in all countries: 7,496,400 (as L1: 7,489,300; as L2: 7,100)."

I can send you videos for these as well but I hope you trust me at this point. The issue is on your end. Clear your cache and refresh the page and the problem will be solved. And please revert the remaining edits :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ethn. is now updated for those two languages as well. However, in the case of Kabyle, Ethn. is calculating from Leclerc, so IMO best to use Leclerc's numbers directly. This is being discussed for the Algerian section of the Berber languages articles. Where Ethn's data is uncited, best to use something verifiable IMO. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

All languages were updated yesterday. The issue was just your cache.

On whether to use Ethnologue or not, that's another broader question (on which I disagree with you). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Turns out Ethn. made an error in their calculation of the Kabyle population. Has been corrected for the next edition. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I pinged you about about that here. Still: they say that Leclerc's figures are "dubious at best, erroneous at worst" (see here). In particular, Leclerc has Kabyles forming 1/3 of all Algerian Berbers whereas all other sources say that Kabyles form the majority of Berberophones in Algeria. What do you think @Kwamikagami? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to think. It looks like there is no reliable data, and presenting the data from multiple sources doesn't help, because they all copy off each other or calculate from each other (%age of the population), and so are not independent estimates, as the reader might think if we were to present them all in a table. It would be nice if Leclerc would respond with what he based his numbers on; I was only advocating him because he seemed to be the indirect source of other estimates. If the last decent data were from the 1960s, then I think we should present that to the reader to make it obvious that we have no current data. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's super hard. I've just posted another source that seems good and gives an estimate for 1991 based on the 1966 census. However, Chaker and others consider that the 1966 census underestimated the number of Berber-speakers (especially outside Kabylia). That being said, I agree, we should give the 1966 figures, maybe give the 1991 estimate, and then cite Universalis (On ne dispose pas de statistiques sûres pour évaluer le nombre des berbérophones : les estimations vont de treize à trente millions ; un total de vingt ou vingt-cinq millions paraît admissible) and Chaker 2022 (En l’absence de statistiques linguistiques fiables, on peut estimer l’ensemble des Berbérophones entre vingt et vingt-cinq millions de personnes, dont la très grande majorité se situe en Algérie (20 à 25 % de la population) et au Maroc (30 à 35 % de la population).) to give the current best guesstimate and the breakdown by country. For the diaspora I think Ethnologue is reliable and sourced. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the Southern Oceanic proposal

If Southern Oceanic was only proposed in 2002, how can Lynch (1995) already have a list for it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That's presumably an error. The details are probably in LRC 2002. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Removals from Category:Ancient peoples

You just edited 20 articles — among them Berbers, Persians, and Samaritans — to remove the above category marker. In a way, I understand this: the category is described as "Peoples of the ancient world (i.e. prior to AD 476)", in line with the definition of the adjective "ancient" as "of or relating to the historical period beginning with the earliest known civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in a.d. 476": these are peoples who have continued to exist after that year, and exist today. But the thing is, when we are discussing "ancient times" by that definition, we can discuss those peoples, in a way we cannot discuss, for instance, Cossacks (whose earliest suggested distinct or named existence is the 10th century) or Sikhs (whose distinct existence began in the 15th century) — or, for that matter, Americans (as distinct from Native Americans). In other words, some "ancient peoples" still exist, while some other peoples now existing are not "ancient"; it's a meaningful and useful distinction. (A meaningful and useful word for peoples who existed in ancient times but not thereafter might be "extinct". If you want to separate these from the ones you just edited, you might create and use for them the tag "Category: ancient and extinct peoples". THAT would not fit Berbers, Persians, Samaritans, etc.)

By parallel, the term "old person" does not refer exclusively to dead people.

If somewhere there is discussion and consensus supporting your edits, please tell me where. If not, please revert them yourself. Otherwise I'll have to, and I dislike such opposition among editors of good will. – _•Raven  ^.talk 15:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I half get your point, but we're terribly inconsistent. In many cases, "ancient" just meant "indigenous" or was a euphemism for "primitive". For many of the peoples I removed that cat from, we only have records of them going back to 1500 AD, or sometimes not even that far back. So they're only "ancient" in the sense of "primitive".

The category 'Berber' is still a subcat of ancient peoples, so they were still covered that way, and Samaritans are still covered as ancient peoples of the Near East. I restored Persians.

I don't have a problem with calling modern peoples attested from the ancient world 'ancient', if we do that for everyone. I do however have a problem with calling peoples 'ancient' just because we judge their cultures to be primitive. Same way I have a problem with calling their nations 'tribes', their kings 'chiefs' and their religions 'fetishes'. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

.Raven I added the ancient Germanic peoples and the Celts to the category. This is what I mean: Europe is the norm, others are marked as exotic. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily the connection. Note that definition's "beginning with the earliest known civilizations...". Perhaps previous taggers considered peoples around the Mediterranean "civilized" but those primitive Northerners "uncivilized". As easy a projection of reasons as the other. For myself, I have an affection for medieval Mongol culture, language, and (classical-script) calligraphy, as I demonstrated in a couple of history-recreationist newsletters — but wouldn't call that people "ancient" only because they got together as a distinct named "people" long after the cutoff time. The issue of "primitive" or not doesn't really affect my sorting. – _•Raven  ^.talk 03:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of that. I wasn't following your edits, just sorting the category. Classifying peoples who were only discovered a couple centuries ago as "ancient" is pushing things -- by that standard, you example of Americans would be ancient. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

When we discovered them is not the point. Before at least the 10th century, there were no "Cossacks" as a single distinct group — they had been a scattering of different groups who then finally met, cooperated, and joined to form one culture. Likewise, before Temujin hammered together many separate groups into an Empire in the 13th century, they weren't "Mongols" (a name of his small clan alone). And before the 15th century, "Sikhs" weren't "unknown"; rather, as "a people" they didn't exist; then people from other groups were joined together by a new religion. It doesn't matter when we found out about them. – _•Raven  ^.talk 05:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it matters. If we have no attestation of a people before a certain date, we have no evidence for how "old" they are. We cannot claim they are "ancient" without evidence. So, if we discover a new people in the Amazon or New Guinea, we cannot claim they're "ancient" just because we judge them to be primitive. For all we know, they split off another group only a hundred years ago.

It would be different if we discovered someone and then were able to determine that they were a continuation of an ancient people we thought were extinct. I'm unaware of any such case, but it could conceivably happen. Where I'm coming from is we describe the Bushmen for example as "ancient" because they're primitive people who have primitive cultures and speak primitive languages because they have primitive brains. There was an article in Science just in 2015 that said basically that. No, we don't know that any of the Bushman peoples are ancient, because we have no substantial evidence for them before the 17th century. Similarly for the "primitive" peoples of Siberia that we call "ancient" simply because we judge them to be uncivilized. If our criterion is that "ancient" peoples existed by 476 AD, then we have to have records of them from prior to 476 AD. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Where I'm coming from is we describe the Bushmen for example as 'ancient' because they're primitive people who have primitive cultures and speak primitive languages because they have primitive brains."

My goodness, why not just use the actual word "primitive" for such a situation?

The boys in Lord of the Flies became primitive, but were also clearly young (in their persons, their presence, their group coherence, and their "culture".)

What "ancient" conveys is "old".

And that's how it should be applied "where I'm coming from" — to distinct peoples/cultures which (in some cases "also") existed a long time ago, with the admittedly arbitrary cutoff date of 476 CE (fall of the western Roman Empire, significant near the Mediterranean and Europe, less so farther from that empire's borders).

That doesn't imply they were always "primitive" in their history, still less now. "Han Chinese" is in the category 'Ancient peoples of China'... which does not imply "primitive", given that they were using the plow by 3000 BCE (see List of inventions and discoveries of Neolithic China), that when Europeans finally visited they were amazed at the advancements China had over Europe (List of Chinese inventions), and that now China has airplanes, rockets, and the nuclear bomb. Indisputably an ancient people, yet not "primitive".

Likewise, Berbers and Samaritans can (and do) travel and communicate by modern means;

Berbers helped conquer Spain, which in turn helped bring about Europe's Renaissance by exposing Europeans to knowledge lost during Europe's Dark Age; Samaritans in Biblical times were technologically as aware as Jews, despite being a neglected minority in Israel/Judea (the "Good Samaritan" was not described as primitive, but was used as an example precisely because of Jewish prejudice against their religion). That doesn't negate the age of their cultures.

• "No, we don't know that any of the Bushman peoples are ancient, because we have no substantial evidence for them before the 17th century."

Have you actually read the regrettably-named article San people? It contradicts that assertion on more than one basis:

1. Archaeology: "A set of tools almost identical to that used by the modern San and dating to 42,000 BC was discovered at Border Cave in KwaZulu-Natal in 2012."
2. Genetics: "A DNA study of fully sequenced genomes, published in September 2016, showed that the ancestors of today's San hunter-gatherers began to diverge from other human populations in Africa about 200,000 years ago and were fully isolated by 100,000 years ago."

As to whether they are in fact "primitive"... any people/culture which has survived that long under such harsh conditions must have done something right.

One should suspect that their technology, limited as their environment's few resources may have made it, was still well-adapted to surviving in that environment — there are even films about that people surviving more effectively there than do lost Europeans.

Please, if you're going to make strong assertions, research them first. Be as skeptical toward your own assumptions as toward any other unsourced (or unreliably sourced) text. – _•Raven  ^.talk 10:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Old tools have been found in the Netherlands. Therefore the Limburgish are an ancient people. We should definitely add them.

The ancestors of the non-San began to diverge from the San 200ka. Therefore Kentuckians are an ancient people. We should add them too.

[I'm not saying the Bushmen are primitive. I'm objecting to people judging them as primitive, and concluding that they're therefore "ancient".]

Actually, all Europeans show a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA. All European nations are therefore ancient. In fact, all human populations are ancient, because we all descend from ancient hominids. Thefore "ancient people" is synonymous with "people", and the category is meaningless and should be deleted.

That isn't helpful. If we claim the category has a meaning, then the members of that category should fit that meaning. — kwami (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

But the totality of human population does not have a distinct coherent culture, which is what we expect "a people" to have — as the Berbers do, as the Samaritans do, as the "San" do. (We could argue that "Americans do", but we know its origin is post-476 CE.)

Yes, every human has ancestry back to the beginning of humanity, but if we used that criterion for "ancient", the word would become useless to us.

By parallel, everything on Earth (outside a nuclear lab) is made up of atoms that have been around for billions of years, so how can we call anything "old" — or "young" — by comparison to anything else?

That redefinition disables the useful function of those words.

Really, that you base your edits on such a creative, but insupportable, reimagination of vocabulary is sufficient reason to revert them. – _•Raven  ^.talk 10:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making that argument -- I'm trying to point out that it's the logical conclusion of your argument.

The Bushmen do not have "a distinct coherent culture", any more than the Europeans do.

If the Bushmen are "ancient" because we have archeological evidence of people living there for thousands of years, then the Europeans are similarly ancient. But that doesn't count, so we're back to European exceptionalism: exotic foreign peoples are ancient, while familiar civilized peoples are modern. No, if the definition of "ancient" is attested before 476 AD, then for a people to be ancient they have to be attested before 476 AD. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

By your logic, "if the definition of 'dinosaur' is attested before 1850 AD, then for creatures to be dinosaurs they have to be attested before 1850 AD."

But in fact it doesn't matter when the category name was created — now, 172 years ago, or in classical times — whether a dinosaur was discovered before or after the category was named, it still fits the category... because that isn't defined as "discovered before X date".

• "... exotic foreign peoples are ancient, while familiar civilized peoples are modern."

Those people from China or India, or Berbers, Bushmen, Iranians, and Samaritans, who happen to speak fluent English, might venture to disagree with you. For them, many "exotic foreign people" are relative newcomers on the world stage, while they live among "familiar civilized people[]" of a proudly ancient culture.

In the words of Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means. – _•Raven  ^.talk 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And I see you have continued to remove 'Category:Ancient peoples' from other articles, including Taiwanese indigenous peoples, which says in the lede: "Academic research suggests that their ancestors have been living on Taiwan for approximately 6,500 years. A wide body of evidence suggests Taiwan's indigenous peoples maintained regular trade networks with regional cultures before the Han Chinese colonists began settling on the island from the 17th century." IOW, ancient but not primitive. In fact, since it appears the Pacific Islands were settled from Taiwan, using skillful navigation, they were anything but "primitive" [pejorative sense] at what they were doing. Please stop. These edits are entirely misguided. – _•Raven  ^.talk 15:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And you declared that Persians are not among 'Ancient peoples of Asia' but rather 'Ancient peoples of the Near East'... did you miss seeing the 'Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia'? Or have you rewritten their history? – _•Raven  ^.talk 15:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And you have removed multiple tribes of Papua New Guinea from 'Category:Tribes of Oceania', or vice versa. Oceania includes New Guinea. This is sheer vandalism. – _•Raven  ^.talk 16:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling a nation a "tribe" is racist. If you have evidence that they're a tribe, fine, but reverting because you don't know any better is not.

Again, we need RS evidence for claims. If we have no evidence some people date to before out cutoff date, then you're simply being disruptive. So, for example, do you have any evidence that the Khoekhoe or Ket as a distinct people date to before 476? If so, please share. Otherwise you're just buying in to racist tropes.

I'll add "Europeans" to "ancient peoples". If it sticks, fine. Otherwise, similar groupings don't belong either. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• "... fine, but reverting because you don't know any better is not."

Oddly, calling the word "tribe" racist is something you do despite my cite of its existing definition here, and a long list of groups using that word as part of their names. You've reverted my reverts despite text and footnotes already in those articles contradicting you.

• "So, for example, do you have any evidence that the Khoekhoe or Ket as a distinct people date to before 476? If so, please share. Otherwise you're just buying in to racist tropes."

1) Read the articles. On User talk:OrangeMike I quoted them to you.

2) How on Earth is it a "racist trope" to say that a distinct people (still alive today) "dates to before 476"? True, some peoples don't qualify — "Americans", for one — but how is that better than qualifying?

• "I'll add 'Europeans' to 'ancient peoples'."

Are "Europeans" an ancient distinct people? The European Union was created within our lifetime. – _•Raven  ^.talk 05:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If your apparent lack of understanding of simple statements is any indication, you're not reading what I wrote. Perhaps you're too angry to. So, I'm not going to continue beating this dead horse. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What "simple statements" do you feel I misunderstood? – _•Raven  ^.talk 06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That I said the word 'tribe' was racist, and that it was a racist trope to note that a modern people dated to before 476. You're clearly not processing what I wrote. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For Nubians, we have a problem. Modern Nubians are only attested back to the 8th century. But our article includes people who previously lived in the area and who may or may not be related. We should probably split off Ancient Nubians. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If you like, we can have a RFC on whether "ancient" should mean (a) attested before 476 AD (your cut-off date) or (b) primitive/tribal. And a second RFC on whether "tribe" should mean (a) a unit of social organization, (b) a tribal people, like the Hebrews and Maori, or (c) primitive. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

476 AD/CE is not "my" cut-off date, but in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "ancient" quoted and linked for you in my very first paragraph above.

"Tribe" is defined in the article of that name; try reading it.

"Primitive" is not mentioned in either of those definitions; go look. I have no idea where you got that idea, but as you seem to base your objections to the words "ancient" and "tribe" on that, I suggest you try documenting it and then getting consensus to deprecate them, changing article/category names to match. You seem to have no such objection to "tribal people", since you've used that instead in article ledes. But it'll be harder to change all the articles to 'Category:Tribal peoples of...' if you had deleted all the 'Category:Tribes of' long before that, so no-one can mass-change the categories. – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word "tribe". But it should mean "tribe", not "nation". The reason Europeans call nations "tribes" is because they judge them to be primitive, not because they're actually tribes. If a people are a tribe, then by all means let's call them that. But we shouldn't categorized nations as tribes any more than we should categorize religions as fetishes or gods as demons.

For the Etoro, you have a RS that they're a tribe. Good. You should probably add that ref to the article. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Apparently you still have not read the article "Tribe", nor "Tribe (Native American)" ("The international meaning of the English word tribe is a people organized with a non–state government, who typically claim descent from a common founder and who speaks the same language."). One can often immigrate to a nation, settlement, or even village. Becoming a member of a tribe or confederation of tribes (to move into its territory) is usually a different matter — and if it's also an ethnic group, how do you change your ethnicity? (This is why the specification "tribe and ethnic group" shouldn't simply be replaced by "tribal people".) As "Tribe" is a political unit, the political rules are what make one group a tribe and another not. Like "Monarchy" vs. "Republic", the terms carry meaningful distinctions. "Primitive" is not implied.

As for the Etoro: as far as I know, you're the only person challenging the "tribe" designation; Wikipedia articles are not for an audience of only one. If it becomes an issue of broader dissent, the cite is there in the history for anyone to copy and paste. – _•Raven  ^.talk 04:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Our articles should be based on RS evidence. If a claim has no support, it can be deleted.

A "Tribe" (capital T) in the US is not the same as a "tribe". Many Native American peoples were not tribal at all, but are still "Tribes" to the US govt. That's a separate issue that applies only to the US.

By "tribal", I mean they have a social structure that includes tribes. The Maori are tribal, as were the Hebrews and Germans. That doesn't mean that the Maori, Hebrew and German nations themselves are tribes, only that there are or were Maori, Hebrew and German tribes within those nations (assuming that a sense of nationhood even existed).

And yes, a people can be both a tribe and a nation. If you have a RS that that is the case, then we can say that they're both a tribe and a nation. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• "A 'Tribe' (capital T) in the US is not the same as a 'tribe'."

The capital T in "Tribe" is there because (unlike Wiktionary) Wikipedia capitalizes the first letter of every article. It is capitalized in the names of tribes because default English-language convention is to capitalize the first letter of every word in a name or title... though "joining" words like "of the", and foreign-language names beginning with prefix-words like de_ or von_, are excepted. Thus the "Beaver Creek Indian Tribe" is a tribe (lowercase-t), the common noun. Words beginning sentences are also "capped", e.g. "Tribes around the world are tribes." There's no connotation of a change in meaning of the word.

• "By 'tribal', I mean they have a social structure that includes tribes."

And as I've said before, the 'Category:Tribes (of...)' tag then refers to those constituent tribes. What about this is hard to understand?

• "And yes, a people can be both a tribe and a nation."

See for instance the ledes of "Navajo Nation" and "Osage Nation". – _•Raven  ^.talk 06:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're not reading. Indeed, there's nothing difficult to understand about a tribe being a tribe and not a nation composed of tribes. Which is why it's annoying that you've repeatedly argued the opposite, whether or not you're aware of it.

No, WP capitalizes "Tribe" only for the US, because the US Fed has a definition of "tribe" that differs from the anthropological one that we use for the rest of the world.

The Navajo are not a tribe, they're a Tribe. Yes, I know that's silly semantics, but it's what we're reduced to when people use words in contradictory fashions. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• "... there's nothing difficult to understand about a tribe being a tribe and not a nation composed of tribes. Which is why it's annoying that you've repeatedly argued the opposite...."

Who's misunderstanding whom? An article about "a nation composed of tribes" mentions those constituent tribes. At that point the 'Category:Tribes (of...)' tag becomes appropriate as referring to those constituent tribes, so that someone looking at that category will see that article, and can click it to read about those constituent tribes.

Categories need not always refer directly to the article title's referent. Carl Friedrich Gauss has 'Category:Intuitionism' even though Gauss himself was not a philosophy of mathematics, or approach thereto. That category refers to something else in the article besides the person of Gauss.

• "... WP capitalizes 'Tribe' only for the US, because the US Fed...."

If that were the case, then federally UNrecognized tribes would all have a lowercase "t" as in "tribe" in their names. Instead we see "Massachusett Tribe at Ponkapoag", "Natchez Indian Tribe of South Carolina", "Northern Narragansett Tribe", etc.

Likewise, by your reasoning there should be a capital "T" as in "Tribe" in these article titles: "List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States", "State-recognized tribes in the United States". But no. Again your firm insistence is contradicted by visible facts.

• "The Navajo are not a tribe, they're a Tribe."

Again, read the article. Navajo Nation: "... the Navajo Nation is the largest land area held by a Native American tribe in the U.S., exceeding ten U.S. states." Lowercase-t even for the largest-land-area holder. – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If the US usage of "Tribe" is capitalized, then why in the world would we write it "tribe"? Again, you misunderstand even the simplest things that I write.

Yes, the Navajo article is in error. Not uncommon on WP. Which is why we don't self-ref WP and call it a RS. Please read WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you obviously can't be bothered to read what I write to the point of comprehension; debating with you is just playing ping-pong. So, this thread is closed. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Since those (as you yourself call them) "Ancient Nubians" are part of the article, the category "Ancient peoples" belongs on it. – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is why they're still categorized under 'ancient peoples'. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Yungur language" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Yungur language has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23 § Yungur language until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For a great editor

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for your tireless editing and ability to recognize the nuance most miss, do not understand, or fail to research regarding parliamentary law vis-à-vis a supreme court’s jurisdiction specially regarding Nepal Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey

Apologies for requesting this. Could you update the picture on Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States? (I saw that you were the last person to edit the image)

I tried to do it myself. But I'm not entirely sure how to change the picture and couldn't get it to work. (I've never edited images on Wikimedia before.)

The 2022 American Values Atlas by Public Religion Research Institute has just been released. (See here for dataset.)

Regards, KlayCax (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I checked there just yesterday, wondering when the next data release would be. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! :) KlayCax (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Just 3 states down a color: MI, MN and OK, but that's to be expected from the scatter, since the polling isn't all that precise. Up overall, as expected. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, for an SVG map like this, it's easiest to use Inkscape. The learning curve isn't all that bad. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. @Kwamikagami: KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable pollster has exclusive on deprecated source

Recently, the deprecated source Breitbart released an exclusive survey from the well-respected pollster Meganalisis (which has been considered a reliable source and is quoted on a multitude of Wikipedia articles) on their website... surrounding the opinions of Venezuelans on same-sex marriage and abortion access and I'm uncertain about how I should proceed in this. It appears that these sorts of exclusives between them and Breitbart are becoming a regular thing. (I'm not entirely fluent in Spanish; I'm not sure what the protocol here is. Generally, I'd state that Breitbart links are inherently unreliable and should never be used per consensus. But the pollster who provided the data is considered to be a reliable source from my understanding, is frequently quoted for data on Venezuela on here, and is frequently cited.

Is there a general agreement on what to do in situations like this?

If a reliable source starts posting information on a deprecated source. What are editors supposed to do?

I was going to update the global poll template on same-sex marriage for Venezuela. But I'm not sure now. KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. We are expected to use common sense and not apply the rules blindly, but this is a weird situation. Can we be sure that a source like Breitbart would even reproduce the data accurately and completely? I'd ask at WP:RS, as there have been a few responses there just this month. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks for responding. @Kwamikagami:

The original post on Breitbart is [Blocked by spam filter. But you can look it up.]

Their Twitter post on showing the data is here.

South Florida Gay News references it. But the full dataset isn't on the website - but rather on Breitbart.

Neither option seems better than the others - and referencing one of the three presents serious problems. (As well as not updating the template data to the new information)

I'll ask. KlayCax (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles

There is currently a discussion that may interest you. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles proposes that the ʻokina gennerally be prohibited from article titles derived from Chinese whenever it does not adhere to the English Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognizable names. Plese join the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sitting Bull

You just edited Sitting Bull to remove a syllable-break character from the IPA rendering of his Lakota name: [i.jɔtakɛ] → [ijɔtakɛ]. Removing the pause between a vowel and a Y-glide tends to elide them into a single syllable, when they belong in separate syllables. Removing the pause in "Bye, you kid!" would sound like "Bayou Kid!", etc. I've reverted that edit. – _•Raven  ^.talk 08:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Tends for who? Do you have any evidence that's a problem? The default syllabification would be [i.jɔ], just as with any other VCV sequence. You're also marking [jɔtake] as a single syllable. It's a bizarre transcription. — kwami (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Witness Russian and Ukrainian names like Достоевский and Зеленский — ending in -ий, which transcribes literally into English as "-iy", but is usually translated as "-y" because the sounds elide. (Cf. UK: /ˌdɒstɔɪˈɛfski/.) The [j] Y-glide is a vowel-sound we place in a consonant's position (as in English we call the letter Y "both a vowel and a consonant"). This is not true of [t] and [k]. It's not a waste of a syllable-break to avoid creating confusion whether it's [i.jɔ]- or [ij.ɔ]-. – _•Raven  ^.talk 15:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What does Russian have to do with Lakhota? And what does the IPA transcription of a language have to do with its conventional transliteration into English? If Lakhota elided the [j] this way, then we wouldn't write the j at all. You say in English we call the letter Y "both a vowel and a consonant", but that's not true for IPA ⟨j⟩, which is just a consonant. So you have no rational reason for claiming that Iyotake is 2 syllables, and I'm reverting. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• "What does Russian have to do with Lakhota?"

What does either of them have to do with English? This is en-WP; what you call "default syllabification" would be done by English-speakers, the same ones who typically elide [ij]. It is for their use we had the syllable break as clarification. Your removal reduces the clarity of the transcription for them. That is both unnecessary to do, and counterproductive to this encyclopedia's purpose. But since you insist that [jɔtakɛ] might then be read as a single syllable, clearly the best solution is to mark every syllable break. Done. – _•Raven  ^.talk 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the default syllabification is a universal. Not perfectly, of course, few language "universals" are, but the norm across the world is for VCV to be syllabified V.CV. The phonetic details of English apply to English, not to Lakhota, and for no other language do we do this.

Your latest appears to be an example of WP:POINT, but by now I don't expect any better. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We write Wikipedia to be clear to as many readers as possible — not just to those who know in advance how to syllabify words from Lakhota or other languages. We're not the only kids in class. – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is why you repeatedly restore errors that others have removed. I don't think adding in purposeful errors is a good way to go, no matter what the audience. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Script" in article titles

I'm sure you're well-meaning, but some people on Wikipedia vehemently insist on enforcing Peter Daniels' recent narrow constricted neologistic redefinition of the word "alphabet", which I really don't think is a good idea. If the "Hebrew alphabet" and "Arabic alphabet" articles are not going to change their titles, then it's rather pointless to go around changing the titles of articles on lesser-known writing systems... AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply following WP:NCWS. It's not about whether an abugida is an "alphabet". — kwami (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But you're ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. "Theban alphabet": About 32,900 Ghits. "Theban script": About 74 Ghits. – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And by COMMONNAME, both Latin script and Latin alphabet should be called "alphabet", same with Arabic script and Arabic alphabet, Bengali script and Bengali alphabet, and Cyrillic script. I left a note at wikiproject writing systems for input, which would also apply to cases like Shavian and Enochian. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You're making an excellent case that your method of distinction between "script" and "alphabet" is incompatible with the existing usage off-WP. The question is... which should govern? The real-world usage, or this idiosyncratic usage incompatible with it? I vote for the real world. In other words, a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach. It's not our job to tell the world what terms it should use, but to report what terms it does. – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's only incompatible with sources that don't bother to make the distinction, and so are too ambiguous to accept as authoritative for an encyclopedia. In this case it hardly matters, because it's not ambiguous within the context of Theban, but it would be a problem if we were to accept such usage generally. — kwami (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right: Theban is unambiguously referred to as an "alphabet" rather than as a "script" at 99.77+% of the locations Google found. This does not keep it from also being a "script", because (as I pointed out to you much earlier) "alphabet" is merely the more specific term — since alphabets, like abjads and abugidas and ideographic writing, are scripts; this is a subset/superset relationship. You just seem to have an unreasonably exclusionary definition of what an alphabet is. If you think an "alphabet" can't be used by more than one language, then indeed the modern "Latin alphabet" isn't one. But this too is by overwhelming majority considered an alphabet. So you differ from most of the world in how you define "alphabet". Too bad, but not for the world. – _•Raven  ^.talk 08:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You really don't bother to read what you respond to, do you? Why don't you take a look at Latin alphabet and Latin script, or any of the other examples you've been repeatedly given. — kwami (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did, and more, including: "The ISO basic Latin alphabet is an international standard (beginning with ISO/IEC 646) for a Latin-script alphabet that consists of two sets (uppercase and lowercase) of 26 letters, codified in various national and international standards and used widely in international communication." ... which, since it's international rather than national, means by your previously announced criteria that it's not an "alphabet" at all. Oh dear! But its contents are the same as the modern English alphabet (though if using it to write in Classical Latin, you wouldn't use the W)... So is that not an alphabet either? The same set of letters can't be both an alphabet and a non-alphabet, can it? Or can't it? If that one, why not Theban? – _•Raven  ^.talk 21:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you're still playing stupid. If you won't discuss things in good faith, stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that your criteria, if applied consistently, would declare the ISO basic Latin alphabet to be not an "alphabet" at all, is an entirely reasonable objection. Why do you assert it is "bad faith" to point that out, or to point out that you have never cited any (off-WP) Reliable Sources to declare "Theban alphabet" an "inaccurate" term? Indeed deleted reference to the RS requirement when quoting WP on the topic? – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Try reading it again: it's "an international standard for a Latin-script alphabet". It's not itself an alphabet, it's the set of letters that many Latin alphabets restrict themselves to.

Again, I don't get what's difficult to understand about e.g. Latin alphabet and Latin script. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... it's 'an international standard for a Latin-script alphabet'. It's not itself an alphabet, it's the set of letters...." — And the Wikipedia article Alphabet opens: "An alphabet is a standardized set of basic written graphemes (called letters) representing phonemes...." — so what you argued actually indicates that it meets the definition of an alphabet. (As does Theban, by the way.)

Otherwise a horse is not a horse, because it's really a domesticated, one-toed, hoofed mammal of the species Equus ferus caballus. – _•Raven  ^.talk 03:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, read Latin alphabet and Latin script until you understand the difference. You seem impervious to understanding anything that contradicts what you think you know. Playing with semantics, and taking imprecise definitions literally, does not make a good argument, it only makes it sound like you're being purposefully obtuse and arguing in bad faith. Come on, you're not stupid, stop pretending that you are. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... taking imprecise definitions literally, does not make a good argument...." — Are you saying WP's definitions are imprecise? Yet on what are you basing your claim? You have not cited a non-WP RS to call Theban non-alphabetic. – _•Raven  ^.talk 03:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

All definitions are imprecise. Taking them literally to the point of being obtuse will not score you any points. Anyway, it's obvious that you're not here to engage in an honest discussion, so you're a waste of my time. I'm not investing more good time after bad, so keep off unless you have something constructive or intelligent to say. — kwami (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're not going to cite any reliable (off-Wikipedia) source that Theban alphabet is inaccurate, is that right? – _•Raven  ^.talk 10:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not going to pander to you playing stupid. This is matter of implementing our naming guidelines, or changing them if that's what people decide, as you well know. So, again, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Spanish Language article

Hello,

I am sending you this message to let you know you are wrong with your last edition in the articule "Spanish language". Spanish is official in Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia. I am from Peru, and I can say that without any doubt. Please, I will ask you to refrain from deleting the edition that shows the map correctly. You do not have, nor will you ever have proof that the Spanish language is coofficial in those countries, because it is not. I recommend you to check the political constitution of those countries so that you can inform yourself a little more. I have uploaded again my image with the updated map, if you want to improve it, you have the doors open. But I am going to ask you not to revert the edition because you would be putting incorrect information again. Best regards LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's official in Peru. No-one said otherwise. As for it being co-official, even Spanish WP says as much, citing Article 48 of the Peruvian constitution. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Then why are you still insisting to put it in the map as co-official? What is the definition of coofficial for you? You are contradicting yourself. Article 48 of the constitution of Peru is clear: Spanish (or Castillian) is the OFFICIAL language. Quechua an Aymara are Official as well in the regions where most of the people speak it. I do not understand why you are still insisting to keep it was "Cooficial".--LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If Spanish, Quechua and Aymara are all official, then they're official together. That's what "co-official" means.

The map distinguishes countries where Spanish is the sole official language, such as Argentina, and ones where it is one of several official languages, such as Bolivia. If Peru is not in the latter group, then the map needs to be corrected.

If you think I'm wrong, please take it to the talk page rather than edit-warring. Also, if you're correct, then the map needs to be corrected rather than just replaced, because many WP's use it. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Quechua and Aymara are official ONLY in some regions where most of the population speak it, and those regiones are a few. Something similar happens in Bolivia and Paraguay. But the official language is Spanish. I still do not understand your logic that if all of them were official, then all of them are Coofficials. Does not make sense to me. But anyway, accussing me as a edit warrior was not okay since I am just improving the article. I already reported the case and I also texted in the Talk page of the article. If more WP´s disagree with me, I will stop with this case. --LordEdurod97 (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

PD: Also, according to your logic, then the colour in Spain is also incorrect, since Spanish (Castillian) is not the only official language in Spain, there is also Aranese, Basque, Catalan, Galician, among others. Which are also official in the regions where most people speak them.--LordEdurod97 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're correct that Spain appears to be a similar situation. It's possible that it should be treated like Peru, but also that we should only count countries were multiple languages are official at the national level. Anyway, I would suggest starting a WP:request for comment on the talk page. It's not just this one article that's affected. — kwami (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I started the RfC. It's not a matter of what's "correct", but of what is useful to the reader. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Cross of Saint Peter

The image you substituted has big blank margins. That may be suitable for a userbox, but not so much for an image thumbnail in an article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Looks a bit odd with no margin at all, though. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of "playing stupid" and "bad faith"

Hello, I'm .Raven. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to WT:NCWS. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Unfounded accusations of "playing stupid" violate WP:NPA, a Wikipedia policy. Unfounded accusations of "bad faith" violate WP:AGF, a fundamental principle on Wikipedia – .Raven  ^.talk 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you said something substantial this time, I'll answer. Even though everyone else in a discussion is able to understand all sides, no matter which one they agree with, you claim to only understand arguments that support your POV, and misrepresent everything else, so that others need to dumb down their arguments for you. Basically, you play Borat in discussions. That is not acting in good faith. An long as you continue to act in bad faith, and as long as you continue to play stupid, I'll continue to call you out on it. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You have again reverted RS citations without due cause

... from N'Ko script, in this case falsely commenting "rv. troll", as earlier on that article you did likewise commenting "rv: this is an ongoing discussion -- wait for the result" (when the only ongoing discussion was a page move request, not pertaining to article text). That's two blankings of content under false premises. Is it "trolling" to even wikilink "West Africa" (one of your removals), for goodness's sake? – .Raven  ^.talk 04:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
[edit conflict prevented my adding:] ... and now I see you have double-reverted on the same day. Careful, what was that about 3RR?
... and now I see you're templating me with a level-2 3RR. You don't live by the rules you cite; nor by WP:DTTR. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The citations wouldn't belong no matter which decision is made with the move request -- they have no legitimate purpose. You're apparently changing the wording of the article to prejudice the move request, and think that adding bogus citations means that you can't be reverted.

If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that. I'm simply not willing to parse the good from the bad in your edits -- that's your job. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you had wanted to argue that on the article talkpage, no-one would have stopped you. Instead you've reverted solidly RS citations three times without doing so, giving invalid, false, premises each time. And now you call them "bogus citations". Clair & Busic-Snyder 2012 is "bogus"? The Merriam-Webster is "bogus"? You say "they have no legitimate purpose". They verify the correct usage; the first RS specifically names N'Ko in that category. You say "You're apparently changing the wording of the article to prejudice the move request" – wait, weren't you the one who changed the wording when you moved the page, and again when reverting that move's reversion in violation of WP:RMUM? Except you did so without citing any RSs, only misrepresenting WP:NCWS and going against the consensus at WT:NCWS. You say "If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that." I'll take you at your word then, and restore them. Thanks! – .Raven  ^.talk 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that if you pretend you can't understand the other side of an argument, that they'll give up in frustration and you'll "win"? Since you're still arguing in bad faith, stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Portola"

About the pronunciation of "Portola" and what I thought was a Schwa "ə" with an unexpected vowel sound. I just looked at the pronunciation guide and have realized that I was wrong about it being a Schwa. The "ə" does correctly characterize the correction pronunciation of the ending "a". Sorry for my stupid uninformed mistake.

Thank you for your diligence. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 21:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Glad we got it worked out. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence

It helps to provide diffs and evidence when on AN/I. When you say a discussion happened at WT:NCWS, then link to it. When you state, Raven has made 7 duplicate and apparently bad-faith move requests (I tend to avoid making characterizations like bad faith except on conduct boards) then link to each diff to let people see them.
Personally, I don't know the difference between a script and an alphabet, but I do know when I see someone pull a bait-and-switch. Unless you demonstrate that's what has been happening with your dispute with .Raven, then no one is going to see your side at AN/I. That only happens with diffs and evidence.
Also, just don't edit war; you know better. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The point was to get them to stop trolling my talk page, but I just added links to ANI. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting on Sumbawa page

User:Nestofbirdnests is still popping back and harassing me and others’ edits. This time as the name “Brett Rivera”. Block him please. Thanks Fdom5997 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have that ability. You can try WP:ANI. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

RE: Solar System

Yes I think that's a definite improvement, thanks for adding the interactive element as well. Bob talk 14:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Moon symbols

Here's a font containing Moskowitz' moon symbols (Jovians in lowercase). Naturally, that involves using U+2BD5 as Charon. Also includes another variant of Orcus' OR-symbol.

Speaking of the Galileans: these are not quite the same as Moskowitz' versions, but the same idea of combining the Jupiter symbol with Greek initialisms. Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are fun.

That Ganymede could be a greek cap gamma on a recto Jupiter sign and would look like a reversed cap Latin G, so mnemonic in both scripts.

That Io is basically bismuth ore, so arguable already has a U code. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

regarding the Chinese names for the asteroids that I told you about some years ago

Remember User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 30#Chinese names for the asteroids?

I spent some time today procrastinating by researching this again. :) It seems that the massive calquing effort is really old. It started back in the Qing dynasty in fact. The idea started from the Wylie and Li Shanlan translation 谈天 of John Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy. (Here you can see a low-resolution scan of the page giving the names of asteroids 1 to 51.) It was first published in 1859 and updated in 1871. In the present astronomical dictionaries they are cited up till 117 Lomia. (With that said, on Chinese Wikipedia they extend beyond that, finally running out at 159 Aemilia, discovered in 1876. And this article says the last edition of 谈天 only went up to 116, though that might be a typo since Lomia was the last minor planet of 1871.) That said, these seem to not always equal the names used today. And some are actually mistranslations e.g. Massalia.

This article lists Li Shanlan's 1870s names for the first thirteen, that were discovered up to 1850 (which are, based on the excerpted scan in the first article, not quite the same as what appeared in the 谈天). These names remain the standard. In a manner of speaking at least: I have never seen anybody actually use the name for Egeria outside a list of asteroid names, for instance. I give glosses and list them explicitly because I think they're really clever. Not sure what article could accommodate this, but it seems we might eventually like a parallel to Chemical elements in East Asian languages for asteroid naming.

• 1 Ceres 穀神星 "grain goddess star"
• 2 Pallas 智神星 "wisdom goddess star"
• 3 Juno 婚神星 "marriage goddess star"
• 4 Vesta 灶神星 "hearth goddess star"
• 5 Astraea 義神星 "justice goddess star"
• 6 Hebe 韶神星 "splendid goddess star" in fact, but the intention must be to abbreviate 韶華 "prime of life, youth"
• 7 Iris 虹神星 "rainbow goddess star"
• 8 Flora 花神星 "flower goddess star"
• 9 Metis 穎神星 "clever goddess star"
• 10 Hygiea 健神星 "health goddess star"
• 11 Parthenope 海妖星 "sea monster star"
• 12 Victoria 凱神星 "victory goddess star"
• 13 Egeria 芙女星 "lotus woman star" most literally, but the connexion is to the idiom 出水芙蓉, appropriate for a water nymph (a beautiful woman, figuratively a lotus, emerging from the water)

The dictionary continues past that, e.g.:

• 14 Irene 司寧星 "master peace star"
• 15 Eunomia 司法星 "master law star"
• 16 Psyche 靈神星 "soul goddess star"
• 17 Thetis 海女星 "sea woman star"
• 18 Melpomene 司曲星 "master song star"
• 19 Fortuna 命神星 "destiny goddess star"

Unfortunately, given the number of nymphs in classical mythology that became the namesakes of asteroids, the clever translations don't quite work so well anymore (Egeria's name could equally fit Thetis, but Egeria came first).

Just as well, I don't know how one could continue it when the names stopped being mythological in any way. The translations have mostly stopped since then, except for the dwarfs (though Sedna is a transliteration and both transliteration and translation are listed for Quaoar). 2060 Chiron is just transliterated. On the other hand 433 Eros is translated indeed: 爱神星.

P.S. What do you think of 浪人星 for 944 Hidalgo? :D Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

P.P.S. Example of actual usage: 肉眼看不到海王星,因为它的亮度比木星的伽利略卫星,矮行星,谷神星和小行星,灶神星,智神星,虹神星,婚神星和韶神星都暗。"The naked eye cannot see Neptune, because it is fainter than Jupiter's Ganymede, the dwarf planet Ceres, and the asteroids Vesta, Pallas, Iris, Juno, and Hebe." Double sharp (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's neat! I don't know if WP is the place for it, though. It sounds more like a Wiktionary project. Those can all be added as translations for the English entries, and possibly entries in their own right. Technically, we're supposed to have at least two uses (not just mentions in a list), but hopefully that won't be too difficult if any are challenged. (We don't need citations to create the entry, just if it's challenged.) I added 浪人星 as a translation for Hidalgo.

'Ronin star'??

Yeah, I think these should all be at least added as translations, and then filled out as entries if we (i.e. you) want to make the effort. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, it looks like I did not make this clear, so: I made up 浪人星, partly as a joke, partly for your opinion. (I guess putting the smiley wasn't enough.) But LOL, apparently my joking effort at continuing Li Shanlan's legacy is good enough to be taken seriously. :D

I replaced Hidalgo with the actual translation. Just transliterations, 希达尔戈 in PRC, 希達戈 in ROC. Double sharp (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops!

I thought it was oddly creative for an asteroid named after a person, but you never know, esp. given its astrological use. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry (well, maybe not that sorry). :)

Some creative submissions of this type are still submitted, but I think they get rejected nowadays outside the historical ones or the dwarfs. 漾神星 "swirl goddess star" got submitted for Salacia back in 2012, but now the trial entry simply transliterates it as 萨拉客亚.

In case you wondered: even Apollo, Aten, and Amor are transliterations. Double sharp (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding Wylie and Li stopping at 117, and the astronomical dictionaries also doing so: I suspect 慫女星 for 130 Elektra is made up (probably from 慫恿 "to provoke"). There are no hits predating the 2008 creation of the zh.wp article and it is not in the astronomical dictionaries. The funny thing though in this case is that the discovery of the first quaternary asteroid made the news, and so there are now copious attestations. Hurray for citogenesis! Double sharp (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added Chinese, Russian and Italian translations through (19). I can use WP-zh for digitization of Chinese names past that, though I don't know if they'll reflect PRC/ROC differences. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting place to stop given the problems with (20). It was the mistranslation 王后星 "queen star" since Li Shanlan. Lately it got updated, but to 马赛 without the 星, which is both odd and collides with the name for its eponym Marseille. zh.wp gives zh:王后星 as the title but calls it 马赛星 as one would expect. 马赛星 does have attestation, e.g. here. But as expected for a name that old, 王后星 appears to have substantially more attestation. Probably we should list both: after all, Lomia is a typo preserved forever, isn't it? Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, show both, I think. There are doublets elsewhere, e.g. French pronunciations spelled phonetically in Italian alongside the regular Italian form. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, you can find a list from that dictionary of asteroid names here. A few special ones I noticed after 117: 139 Juewa 瑞华星 (chosen by Prince Gong), 150 Nuwa 女娲星, 216 Kleopatra 艳后星 (but listed as 试用 "probationary", so make of that what you will), 2212 Hephaistos 冶神星 (what's so important about this NEA I cannot guess), 20461 Dioretsa 逆名星, 65803 Didymos 孪大星.

Ah, and (21) is also a problem: Li Shanlan gave it the name 司琴星, now the Chinese astronomical dictionary wants to call it 巴黎 "Paris" or transliterate it as 鲁泰西亚. Based on zh:WikiProject talk:天文#一些小行星的音译名 this is not really universally agreed among Chinese astronomers. Frankly I think this whole thing was stupid. 王后星 and 司琴星 may be mistranslations, but they were in use for a very long time, and when Rosetta flew by Lutetia everyone was calling it 司琴星. But oh well, that's the problem you have to deal with when the names only resurrect when a probe flies by. Double sharp (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(This calquing effort sits kind of oddly with Li Shanlan's other nomenclature choice, BTW: to use only the Roman-numeral names for the satellites. Titan is 土卫六, no problem. I don't know why he made these two very contrasting choices.) Double sharp (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I added some of those. But 孿大星 doesn't appear anywhere on WP-zh, though. Is that supposed to be Didymos proper, with ?孿小星 for Dimorphos?

We might add the first 13 to Li Shanlan's article, though they might be considered trivia. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you maybe take a look at Didymos and Dimorphos on Wikt and remove any 'synonyms' that don't actually exist? I already removed a bunch. (Or restore any I removed in error.) — kwami (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Dimorphos is 孪小星. Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Planet was already giving some examples, so I put as a sampler (1) through (4), as is tradition. (And (5) through (13) in a footnote, since we're sure they're from him, and I would've hated seeing as a kid that he named the first 13 and then not seeing all 13 listed somewhere.) :) Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I created them on en.wiktionary all the way up to (57), before finding that (58) had been deleted for insufficient verification outside the lists. Oops. Well, I guess the first edition of 谈天 did stop at (51). Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. (48) 昏神星 is a mistranslation and also homophonous with (3). Not to diminish the brilliance of the first thirteen, but they do seem to get less creative afterwards. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and not just in Mandarin either. — kwami (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

In a way, these are kind of like the supposed English names for groups or young of animals, which only ever occur in lists of names of groups or young of animals. If no-one ever used them, it's going to be hard to justify their inclusion. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that they have a sort of "potential existence", in the sense that when an already named asteroid gets a visit or some news interest, everyone looks it up in the dictionary, and the potential name becomes a real name. 司琴星 for Lutetia is a perfect example (so are Ceres, Vesta, and Psyche as they have received or are going to receive visits); so also for the names for Kalliope, Eugenia, and Sylvia in this article discussing asteroid satellites. But when the asteroid is not particularly interesting, they languish in dictionaries as only theoretical parts of the language.

Well, what do you think I should do with the ones I already created before finding out? :D Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Just leave them. It's not like the entries are wrong. They may be challenged, in which case if you feel it's worth the effort you can try to find attestation, or perhaps someone else on Wikt will be able to. It's amazing what people can find sometimes. — kwami (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! So I'll leave what I've created, but I'm not making any more pages.

FWIW, the names for 1-100 are listed in the almanacs published by the Taipei Astronomical Museum (I linked to the 2021 one, where they're on pp. 378–383). But that's still just a list. Incidentally, pages 341 through 344 show how even to this day, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta are still sometimes being treated as being something more than ordinary asteroids.

P.S. Two real creatively translated asteroids whose original names come from people: (45) Eugenia 香女星 and (54) Alexandra 哲女星. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding (25) Phocaea 福后星, it doesn't make sense as a translation of the meaning, but do you think it might be meant to match the sound? Double sharp (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd think so. The 福 anyway. I don't know what the 后 is doing. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp: perhaps they could all be listed in an appendix like wikt:Appendix:Geologic_timescale? — kwami (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea, yes. Maybe I'll do it when I feel like I have time. Double sharp (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See also wikt:Appendix:Chinese dictionary-only terms. Might be cross-linked. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As for the other Sinosphere languages: Japanese Wikipedia uses ケレス or セレス for Ceres, and marks 穀神星 as Chinese-only. I can't read Korean at all, but Google Translate suggests that it doesn't use the calque either.

Vietnamese Wikipedia includes the expected sao Cốc Thần as an alternative name for Ceres in the lead, but no such thing appears for any other asteroid. It lists Táo Thần Tinh for Vesta as a Chinese name. For Pallas, the sole attestation I have is one textbook from Vietnam Education Publishing House (which also gives Ceres, Juno, Vesta):

Đêm ngày 1 tháng 1 năm 1801, cuối cùng hành tinh "trốn" này cũng đã bị nhà thiên văn ý là Piazzi "tóm" được. Người ta đã đặt tên cho hành tinh này là sao Cốc Thần (Ceres).

Hành tinh mới được phát hiện trong kỳ vọng làm cho các nhà thiên văn vừa phấn khởi lại vừa cảm thấy thất vọng. Bởi vì hành tinh này nhỏ đến kỳ lạ, đường kính chỉ có 770 km chưa đến 1/4 đường kính của Mặt Trăng. Nó chỉ được xem là một hành tinh rất nhỏ - tiểu hành tinh.

Khoảng 1 năm trôi qua, năm 1802 bác sĩ Aupos nhà thiên văn nghiệp dư người Đức lại phát hiện tiểu hành tinh thứ 2 - sao Trí Thần (Pallas). Sao này còn nhỏ hơn cả Cốc Thần, đường kính của nó chưa đến 500 km.

Sự phát hiện sao Trí Thần khiến cho các nhà thiên văn cảm thấy rất kinh ngạc, vì ban đầu họ muốn tìm thấy một hành tinh, nhưng nay lại tìm thấy một cặp. Như vậy còn có ngôi sao thứ 3, thứ 4 nữa không?

Sự thực đúng như mọi người dự đoán, năm 1804 tức là 2 năm sau người ta lại phát hiện tiểu hành tinh thứ 3 - sao Hôn thần (Juno). Năm 1807 lại phát hiện tiểu hành tinh thứ 4 - sao Táo Thần (Vesta). Về sau lại phát hiện tiểu hành tinh thứ 5, thứ 6...

Not sure if it's worth mentioning despite one admittedly officially published textbook, since in practice Vietnamese Wikipedia uses the English names. (BTW, this is probably pre-2006, because it still calls Pluto a planet, in the process using sao Cốc thần again to note that Pluto is larger than Ceres: Mặc dù Diêm Vương Tinh trong quá khứ có phải là vệ tinh của Hải Vương Tinh hay không thì hiện nay nó vẫn đang quay quanh Mặt Trời, điều đó khẳng định nó là một hành tinh. Vì khối lượng của nó nhỏ hơn rất nhiều so với các đại hành tinh khác, có những nhà thiên văn muốn quy nó về tiểu hành tinh, nhưng đường kính của sao Cốc thần là tiểu hành tinh lớn nhất vẫn chưa đến 1000 km cho nên còn nhỏ hơn rất nhiều so với Diêm Vương Tinh, do đó đa số các nhà thiên văn vẫn thừa nhận Diêm Vương Tinh nên quy về đại hành tinh của hệ Mặt Trời.) Double sharp (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth note as a synonym on Wiktionary.

I don't see anything on the WP-ko articles other than the Western names. Odd, Ceres has an English /s/ but the Latin vowels, /se.re.s@/, which might be French, but Juno has a Latin /j/, /ju.no/, and Astraea and Hygiea are /a.s@.th@.ra.i.a/ and /hi.ki.e.i.a/. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

I added these Vietnamese names as synonyms to (1)-(4) on Wiktionary. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

:-) — kwami (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The Zhuang names for the eight major planets are pretty much equivalent to the Chinese ones:

• Mercury = Ndaundeiqraemx "star water"
• Venus = Ndaundeiqgim "star gold" or Ndaundeiqhaemh "star dusk"
• Earth = Giuznamh "ball dirt / earth"
• Mars = Ndaundeiqfeiz "star fire"
• Jupiter = Ndaundeiqfaex "star wood"
• Saturn = Ndaundeiqnamh "star earth"
• Uranus = Ndaundeiqdenh'vuengz, I think it's "star sky king"
• Neptune = Ndaundeiqhaijvuengz, "star sea king"

Added the missing ones to Wiktionary. Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Not surprising, as it's not too long ago that the Zhuang thought of their languages as dialects of Chinese. — kwami (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, do you know where I can read more about that? Our WP articles don't seem to mention it, though it's very plausible. Zhuang people#Identity has a quote from 1952 saying that They rather refer to themselves as "Han who speak the Zhuang language.", which suggests that they were then aware of their linguistic distinctiveness but did not consider that to mean ethnic distinctiveness. Then again it's not clear from that quote if that means they thought they were speaking a different language altogether or just another dialect. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't recall, and I don't know how long ago they were talking about. It could well be pre-1950, and that it was the PRC govt who made their language official and thus officially not 'Chinese', but that the Zhuang retained the identity they had previously assimilated into. I remember the source saying that they considered themselves to be Chinese and their "language" (it was considered just one at the time) to be a "dialect of Chinese", but no further details. (I recall that the mention was rather brief.) — kwami (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll try to keep it in mind in case I ever come across this source. It's interesting given that Zhuang people#Genealogical fabrications and ethnic identity mentions that they resisted the initial imposition of "Zhuang" identity, and Zhuang people#Nationalism indicates that a Zhuang ethnic consciousness developed after the PRC recognised them as a minority and made Guangxi an autonomous region. This book review seems to agree. Anyway, I thought of looking their language up for this because their traditional script is Chinese-based. Though Zev Handel's Language, Writing and Literary Culture in the Sinographic Cosmopolis (2019) says The early history of Zhuang writing is poorly understood, as is the early history of the role of Literary Sinitic in Zhuang society. While demographic and political history suggest that Chinese writing played an administrative role in Zhuang areas from about 2,000 years ago, as in northern Vietnam and northern Korea, there is almost no direct evidence bearing on the introduction of Chinese writing. (See Lù (2002: 184–187), for an argument that writing was introduced during the time of the Nán Yuè 南越 kingdom in the early 2nd century BCE under Zhào Tuó 趙佗. For more on Nán Yuè, see Chapter 4.) To what extent, if any, Zhuang speakers participated in the Sinographic cosmopolis is unclear. While a substantial number of speakers of Zhuang must have learned Chinese and learned Literary Sinitic, there is little historical suggestion that the Zhuang area of Southwest China played any cultural or intellectual role within the broader Sinographic cosmopolis, or that Zhuang speakers contributed to the cultural sphere that communicated through Literary Sinitic. There is no evidence of anything like a glossing tradition, of the type seen in Japan and Korea, that facilitated the reading of Literary Sinitic texts aloud in spoken Zhuang. For this reason we will treat this area as part of the Sinographosphere, but not necessarily part of the Sinographic cosmopolis. Though I guess absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

P.S. It's interesting that according to their infoboxes, Chữ Nôm is younger than Sawndip. This made me think of something I remember reading before, that during the eras of northern domination Jiaozhi / Jiaozhou / Annan was much more sinicised than Guangxi, counterintuitively from the modern situation where the former isn't part of China whereas the latter is. Sorry that I likewise don't remember the source. Double sharp (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That would seem likely. Coastal Annan was 'civilized' in a way that interior and mountainous Guangxi was not. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Gonggong is left unnamed in ja.wp, but is as expected named 공공 in ko.wp and Cung Công in vi.wp. Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's intentional. I've tried. Some problem with translating back into Chinese characters not being appropriate, but using the anglicized name not really appropriate either. — kwami (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit silly to me, but it's their decision. I do wonder why they think translating back to Chinese characters is inappropriate; Korean and Vietnamese don't see anything wrong with that.

BTW, sent you an email. Double sharp (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Namibia

Hi User:Kwamikagami! Recently the Supreme Court of Namibia recognized same-sex marriages conducted in other countries. Can you please update the File:African homosexuality laws.svg map? It would be striped. I think it would either be purple or green. Homosexuality has not been decriminalized yet.

Thank you!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should lavender/yellow, as AFAICT foreign marriage is only recognized for immigration & work etc. purposes, and is not accepted as marriage. That might change with clarification, though. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!! -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Geologically interesting asteroids

Come to think of it, if geology is held as the main thing behind planethood (for geoscientists), then aren't Pallas and Vesta better candidates following the spirit of the definition than Hygiea? Sure Hygiea has the right shape, but unless I mistake what is meant by gravitational reaccumulation of the pieces, it seems like Pallas and Vesta are mostly intact in the form they underwent differentiation in, whereas Hygiea got totally disrupted and is now a reaccumulation of the debris. Judging from the similar case of Euphrosyne, that's enough to cause nice sphericity, but it's sphericity that might not have much to do with HE (Euphrosyne being too spherical for its current spin). Would such a reaccumulation end up with significant geological processes happening anymore? Certainly it sounds like all the differentiation would've been undone. That said, still waiting for our Psyche article to be obsolete.

(Interamnia also looks kind of lumpy to me, judging from the infobox picture.)

The motivation being: I'm kind of annoyed that I can't logically put Pallas and Vesta in List of planemos, even though at least Vesta is commonly called the smallest terrestrial planet, and they would both be good examples of terrestrial dwarfs if one ignored the family-forming craters. Though depending on what we see, in some years we might find a good case for Psyche. (And what to make of Saturn IX Phoebe? Maybe I should leave well enough alone after all.) Double sharp (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What would make Hygiea geologically interesting is, if it had differentiated before being disrupted, then a surface mission should be able to find rocks from all its layers -- crust, mantle and core. With Psyche, we'd only have access to the outer core and probably inner mantle, but w Hygiea we could have access to the innermost core as well. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's something I hadn't considered. Given the likely state of Ceres, I doubt Hygiea was fully differentiated even before being whacked, but it still would be something. It'd also help with answering questions on the origin of Miranda.

Perhaps one might find inner-core remnants lurking among the smaller M-type asteroids. Double sharp (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

But Ceres formed further out, so it may not be representative of what to expect. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

True. That said, do we really know where Hygiea formed either? The asteroid belt has probably vacuumed up a bunch of bodies that formed in quite unexpected places. This paper suggests 203 Pompeja and 269 Justitia formed beyond Neptune (!), and maybe 21 Lutetia was formed in the region of the terrestrial planets and then thrown further out. I guess Interamnia might be a useful comparison for Hygiea, since it has a similar location and composition but probably wasn't completely disrupted by impacts (since it has no family).

Now I wonder if we'd notice if any intra-Mercurian protoplanet remnants had been chucked into the asteroid belt. Double sharp (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there's a huge assortment among the trojans, perhaps more diverse than the belt. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, Lucy is on its way. :D

Regarding small M-type asteroids, 77 Frigga apparently has a mean density of 11.05 ± 4.34 g/cm³, and its spectrum is consistent with having either enstatite-chondrites or iron-nickel meteorites as analogues. Might be worth looking into if you ever get your wished-for minisat flybys of large asteroids and centaurs. :) Or of course it could be just as wrong as the old Euphrosyne estimate. Who knows. Double sharp (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, do we have a list of asteroids by surface gravity anywhere? I imagine it must be topped by Ceres, Pallas, and Vesta as the only ones above 0.02g, but given that Psyche seems to beat Hygiea because of density, it's not too clear what would follow. Double sharp (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Never seen one. I doubt one would be feasible, as we don't know the parameters to very high accuracy. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

About what I expected, to be fair. :( Also, just checked and Vesta beats Pallas. So swap those two around. :D Double sharp (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if Proteus might have been an ex-planemo like Pallas or Vesta. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

other TNO symbols (Huya, Logos, Praamzius, Dziewanna, Deucalion)

Could I check what the source for them is? (The ones from Chaos on up are mentioned in the Unicode DP proposal, but not these.) Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

They're all astrological. You should be able to find them on Zane Stein's site, may be further refs there. Not common, of course. — kwami (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, Praamzius was a redlink, so I reverted it first. Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "redlink"? — kwami (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is really weird. Seems that you'd uploaded it but for some reason the file was displaying for me as a redlink. Can't reproduce this and it's working now, so I reverted it back.

Zane Stein's Trans-pluto page has the symbols for Praamzius and Logos swapped.

I'm not sure how defendable these symbols would be if someone challenged them. You may recall I had some trouble with the Sedna symbol when that was at FAR: I was able to cite Unicode for the symbol, but not Moskowitz himself, even if he designed it. Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

File upload at Commons was off yesterday. Lots of failed uploads, and files that showed as failed even when they uploaded. Might have s.t. to do with that. — kwami (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the additions. Zane Stein is indeed prominent in astrology, but since it was not accepted to cite Moskowitz' website for a few extra details about the Unicoded Sedna symbol, I don't think his site is enough (particularly when it gives two glyphs for Huya, for example).

So far I've been trying to stick to the line "does it appear in historical RS for the asteroid symbols, or in Unicode proposals for the newer ones". (Well, Apollo + 13 do not yet.) Double sharp (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Turns out they're Stein's symbols, so he's the authority. I wonder if we misread the page, or if he'd made an error that's since been corrected? But the owl is the Logos symbol, the burst is Praamzius. That's been sorted out now. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Re Parthenope, my impression from what I searched out some days ago was that the fish-and-star symbol was the only one used when asteroid symbols were still a live usage in research, rather than a holdover being repeated in a few textbooks and dictionaries. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, removed, added a comment as to why one is preferred. — kwami (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It was more described than actually drawn, but the descriptions up to 1852 are all of the fish-and-star symbol. Of course, the window between asteroid symbols being a live usage and just appearing in lists was fairly small from (5) Astraea onwards. Circled numbers had already been suggested in 1850, and the symbol for Hygiea wasn't announced till 1850 (even though it was discovered in 1849), so the bound for Hygiea onward was small indeed.

P.S. in a paper by a Rabinet on Thetis when it had just been discovered, the author mentions the circled-number scheme, and adds that he has been proposing his own systematic scheme for a while: Depuis longtemps nous proposons comme plus simple, de suivre pour les petites planètes de ce groupe la méthode employée par Bayer, pour désigner individuellement les diverses étoiles d'une même constellation. On les désignerait par les lettres de l'alphabet grec, alpha, bêta, gamma, etc., les mêmes qui servent dans Homère à numéroter les chants de l'Iliade et de l'Odyssée. Dans cette notation, la planète Cérès découverte la première a pour signe la lettre α, Vesta est représentée par la lettre δ qui est la quatrième de l'alphabet. La seizième planète découverte il y a quelques semaines le serait par la lettre π, qui est la seizième lettre grecque; enfin, la dix-septième et dernière, celle de M. R. Luther, le serait par la lettre ρ. Cette classification alphabétique dispenserait de tout autre nom ou de toute autre désignation. Une fois l'alphabet épuisé, on reprendrait comme d'usage les mêmes lettres avec les numéros deux, trois, etc.: ainsi la quarante-huitième planète sera oméga deux, ω², et la centième delta cinq, δ⁵. Avec les instruments actuels, et d'après l'éclat des nouvelles planètes, on peut présumer qu'on atteindra trente ou quarante de ces petits astres; mais si l'on employait les grands réfracteurs de quatorze pouces de Poulkova, de Cambridge, Amérique, ou de l'Observatoire de Paris, ou bien les télescopes de M. Lassell ou de lord Rosse, on ne pourrait plus assigner aucune limite au nombre visible des petits corps planétaires qui foisonnent entre Mars et Jupiter. Unfortunately I can't find where he previously proposed it. Double sharp (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Misspelling of "Puyuma" in several Formosan languages maps

Hello, @Kwamikagami! Just here to inform you that I have found that some of your Formosan map files contain a misspelling of "Puyuma" as "Puyama". Namely, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Formosan_languages_2005.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Formosan_languages.png. I once fixed a similar issue from another user that had the same map but this time I decided to just message you instead because I'm not sure I can do it properly again. I'm not very familiar with all of Wiki's software. Have a great day! Rvat2003 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It's correct on the legend, though, and I don't have a good way to correct a PNG, since I don't have the file it was generated from. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

References

"Agita language" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Agita language has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 29 § Agita language until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

IPA font symbols

Please stop changing the phonetic symbols (specifically ones with diacritics) to symbols which are not even *conveniently* displayable. Most newcomers to the IPA, are unaware of the fonts that they can download, and it’s a bit of an inconvenience for them as well. The sound symbols with diacritics (that I put out) are much more universal than the proprietary symbols that you’ve displayed across the language pages. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

They're not "proprietary", they're IPA. The symbols you use are also an inconvenience for people who don't have a proper font. If nothing else, the diacritics will be scattered or overstrike, rendering the symbols illegible. That's why we post a warning on pages with IPA, that people may need to install a proper font for the page to display properly. That's been the case since day 1. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami After seeing your recent edits to the following pages, I still beg to differ on the symbol transcription. And I also don’t agree with using images within the IPA chart boxes either. Even if those symbols could be viewed in the text, they are still not as common at all and only seen in the ExtIPA symbol charts, not in the standard consonant symbol chart. And yes, most people are able to view the consonant symbols with diacritics, as it is also *more* universally displayable, and viewable on most mobile devices. Although some might be confused as to what diacritics are. But nevertheless, even if some browsers can’t display those symbols, that’s why they should be notified to install the proper font as you said. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami which is font that should be downloaded? Please let me know. Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, the SIL fonts Gentium Plus and Andika are kept nicely up to date.

Presumably others have added the Latin F and G blocks by now, but SIL has good diacritic rendering as well. Those are the fonts mentioned in the IPA article. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link please? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Download for Gentium (serif) is here, and that for Andika (sans-serif) is here. For printing, font features are summarized here and here. — kwami (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 1Firang (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes 10:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Kwamikagami, I have left a note on ANI that you can review as the reason for your block.[1] Please follow the instructions above to request an unblock. Any other administrator may review your request and may unblock you without checking the same from me. Thank you, Lourdes 10:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Block is "nonsense" per consensus of other editors

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kwamikagami (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I woke up this morning to find myself blocked. I have been blocked because I refused to promise not to use the word 'nonsense' in the future when referring to another editor's edits. This supposedly constitutes a personal attack. There was evidently supposed to be some sort of agreement, that another editor would agree not to edit-war any more, and in exchange I would agree not to call their nonsense 'nonsense'. My words were part of a consensus that that editor's claims were nonsense, a consensus that they adamantly refused to understand. For example, their own refs prove them wrong, yet they insist that we accept their claims. Rather than defend myself directly, I'll quote responses to my block, mostly from experienced editors (e.g. Tenryuu, VanIsaac and Abecedare have all been here since 2006, Star Mississippi since 2007 and AndyTheGrump since 2010.) Seven editors -- unprompted -- have stated that this block is inappropriate, all while I was asleep last night:[WP:ANI#Revert war] "This is an utterly ridiculous block." '[NPA] states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Kwamikagami was quite clearly commenting on the content of the edits.' "How does using the edit summary rv. nonsense justify a block for personal attacks?" "This block is absurd. No, strike that, this block is bullshit. "It is self-evident that the thread here was started by a contributor that has a history of trying to game the system. A contributor who has repeatedly invented bogus 'consensus' to try to push through POV-pushing edits, A contributor who's entire concept of 'consensus' revolves around intentionally misrepresenting what others say. A contributor who started this thread by asking for Kwamikagami to be blocked not for anything they had done, but to prevent an imagined 'edit war' that had yet to occur. A contributor who's continuing presence on Wikipedia is a net negative. This block rewards improperly-motivated rulemongering to the detriment of Wikipedia. We aren't here to be 'civil', we are here to create encyclopaedic content, and if telling those who clearly aren't that their edits are nonsense or bullshit is necessary, we should do so. "Unblock. The content is bullshit, which is what they indicated. If that's the barometer for an NPA, I think we'd lose all editors to a block. I know I've referred to bullshit as such." "Just to add on the pile, this block was a direct violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. "This needs to be overturned now, not later, and User:Lourdes needs to brush up on proper admin conduct. "I can call this block "bullshit" and it is not a personal attack because it is directed at egregious conduct that flies in the face of basic Wikipedia policy. "Unless we are going to start a wide-ranging RfC to become the word police and start up a list of censored words, editors need to be free to call nonsense "nonsense" and bullshit "bullshit", even when it might be intemperate to do so. This was a pure act of retaliatory punishment, and is just plain wrong." "Even I could see that this was a Wikipedia:Randy in Boise situation. Would recommend an unblock." — kwami (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The basis for this block has been disputed by a number of editors at the relevant ANI thread and the blocking admin notes above that any admin can unblock without checking with her. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

[Outcome: editor who requested my block has been indefinitely topic-banned. — kwami (talk)]

DYK nomination of Oduduwa script

Hello! Your submission of Oduduwa script at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Example usage in a {{NoteTag}}

Hello, I want to ask you about this edit. Is it standard to include examples like this in "References" instead of "Notes"? I am asking because when cleaning up references in International Phonetic Alphabet, I used {{NoteTag}} for examples similar to this one. Janhrach (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There were several similar sources in that section, and all the others linked to the References section. The only difference here was that this one started with the words "for example", followed by the full citation. IMO, that's not enough editorial commentary to require turning it into a note, and if it were a note, the citation should be embedded in its own ref tag, which IMO wouldn't add anything in this case. If I were naively reading that section, I would expect a note to be substantially different in content from the several refs, and it wasn't.

But AFAIK there is no set line between one and the other, and it's a matter of judgement. In a different context, it might make more sense for that same footnote to be in the Notes section. It's a judgement of which presentation will make the content most accessible to the reader. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean, thank you. Janhrach (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi SSM

Hiya, can you add the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (16th March 2023) to the timeline of the Same Sex Marriage article? Can't do it as an IP anymore, best & many thanks 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Was it not legal before? How does the new code differ from the old one? — kwami (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

to my perception, there was no code covering marriage before 155.245.69.178 (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then SSM was already legal, because the Tribe operated under state law. This merely formalized it. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've asked on the talk page how we should handle this, but no response yet. I suspect that several of the tribes we currently list are similar, but it would take a lot of time to figure that out. — kwami (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please make use of the edit summary field. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Preemptively accusing me of 'disruptive' editing when I revert your biased edit does not give you a pass to disrupt WP. Since you've cited WP policies, I assume you're familiar with 3RR, but consider this your formal warning. Please read WP:BOLD for what to do when others object to your undiscussed edits. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit is not biased. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia with POV editing. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow procedure. If you get consensus for your wording, fine. Otherwise respect your colleagues. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You're in no position to offer a "formal warning", and if you're concerned about bold edits, we can revert to the status quo of four months standing. Apart from that, refrain from continuing your POV-pushing on this website. Your insertion of bizarre changes to past tense without explanation are also disruptive. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of submitting a 3RR report at ANI when you responded; I'll take you up on your offer for the status quo ante. Discussion on better wording can be handled on the talk page.

You don't appear to understand what "disruptive" means, or else you're using words without regard to their meaning because you think the rhetoric sounds good.

Past tense because, per the sources in the article, this is no longer the case. When a situation existed in the past but does not exist in the present, we use the past tense. I didn't think that required explanation. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was snarky. I've attempted to clarify the timing. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I may also have been rather knee-jerk in responding, sorry. Your new wording makes more sense and is an improvement, thanks. About "These also remain internationally recognized as Ukrainian" - I assume you rephrased this to avoid repetitive wording in the text, a sentiment I agree with. But in this particular case I think "part of Ukraine" is better for accurately reflecting the majority diplomatic view. What say you? Cambial — foliar❧ 19:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Better to be precise. — kwami (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isthmus Nahuatl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hey there – I notice that in a few comments, the way you approach editors you disagree with is rather confrontational. Consider these statements:

• We rewrite, summarize and distill the information in our sources. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing here. (Template:Did you know nominations/Oduduwa script)
• Whether you can see it is irrelevant -- if you don't understand how copyright works, you shouldn't be making objections on the basis of copyright. (Template:Did you know nominations/Oduduwa script, to a different editor)

There's one other example on a different page I won't link because you did apologize for saying it right afterwards. These kinds of comments don't help persuade others to your side, and certainly don't make outside volunteers want to jump in and voice their support. Please try to keep your comments respectful – the fastest way to prove your point is by providing evidence and assuming that other contributors are reasonable and here to help. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Language maps for Chinese/Mandarin, as seen at Sinophone, Mandarin Chinese, List of countries and territories where Chinese is an official language, etc.

Should Wa State be coloured on them somehow? Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If our summary is correct, it's a recognized regional language, not an official or national language, so I'd say no. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I found a recent article that has a section on the language situation in Wa State. Our summary seems to be correct: Wa is the recognised national language and the state tries to promote it. However, the de facto situation is pretty interesting: What complicates the use of the Wa language further is that there is not an agreed standard Wa language and standard Wa script: dialectal variations are huge, and three different scripts are used. The standards promoted by the Christian church, by the minority departments of the Chinese government and by the Wa Central Authorities are all different. And even if everyone would agree on a standard language and script, there is yet another problem in the sense that many subjects of the Wa State are not ethnic Wa, but Shan, Lahu and Chinese who do not necessarily understand the Wa language. Given these difficulties, rather than insisting on the use of the Wa language, people often switch into Chinese. Chinese is perceived to be more convenient, given it is taught in many schools, used for business purposes, and as the hegemonic language in the bureaucracies of army and state. That last sentence is also confirmed by earlier material on an official who is employed to translate government pronouncements into Wa – which suggests that they were not in fact originally in Wa. I'm not sure what to call this situation. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it's the de facto official language, so yes, I agree it should be on the maps. English isn't officially official in the US either. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple more sources I found don't focus on the linguistics, but make a mention of the language situation. This one writes The working language of the UWSP and UWSA is Mandarin Chinese but with a distinct Wa dialect, most goods come from China, and the currency in use is the Renminbi. (I guess this could very plausibly mean that the Mandarin used by the Wa State is not quite the Standard Mandarin you'd find in official use in China, and is somewhat influenced by the local languages.) This one claims both Mandarin and Wa are de jure official, but it's older (2002), so possibly the situation has changed since then. Anyway, I've added a note to List of countries and territories where Chinese is an official language. (Changing the maps is harder, since Wa State is only de facto independent, and I'd have to draw it specifically.)

I was trying to find information on Kokang (because it's self-governing and has a 90% Chinese majority, so it seemed a possibility worth checking), too. But it's difficult to find such information without understanding Burmese. :( Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Map

Please add Andhra Pradesh to this map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Urdu_official-language_areas.png . DareshMohan (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Also reduced the file size by 90% while increasing resolution. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Judeo-Kashani" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Judeo-Kashani has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 27 § Judeo-Kashani until a consensus is reached. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Proportion of French speakers by country

Hi, I would kindly ask you to please add the Aosta Valley on this map, since if the proportion of French-speakers in Italy il -20%, in this region, where the French language is official since 1561, this percentage is +50%. Thanks :) You can reply to me here if needed. 217.126.85.158 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite/Intersex

You are of course correct that there is no such thing as a human (or even mammal) hermaphrodite. But as the article stands, we imply that it does, because we don't say anything about intersex. That was what I was trying to rectify but without a citation I accept that it couldn't stand. Have you any sources for medical practice in such cases? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMF: Possibly. I can't tell how widespread the word ever was in the medical community, but I found

• Alice Domurat Dreger, 1998, Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex

and a reprint from Cytogenetics I, 1962,

• A human intersex ("true hermaphodite") with XX/XXY/XXYYY sex chromosomes

Dreger, which is partially viewable on GBooks, cites medical papers from the 19th and early 20th centuries that use the words "hermaphrodite", "hermaphrodism" and "hermaphroditism" (in English and French) but also "pseudo-hermaphrodism" and "hypospadias" to refer to people with both masculine and feminine sexual anatomy. It reads,

Their unusual anatomies can result in confusion and disagreement about whether they should be considered female or male or something else. These people have for centuries been labeled "hermaphrodites," and since the early 1900s they have also sometimes received the medical designation of "intersexual."

There's also the term "ambisexuality", which doesn't have conflicting uses. But it does seem that the term "hermaphodite" continues to be used for ambisexual humans, despite biologists objecting that it is inaccurate. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No doubt whatsoever that the term hermaphrodite was used since ancient times until relatively recently (and probably still is by older medics), to describe people who have atypical genitalia for their DNA gender. "Intersex" is the more accurate term, but whether the symbol ⚥ has been redefined with that meaning is the stumbling block. Citation needed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

McElroy says ⚥ is used for bigender (also androgyne, agender, etc.).

But McElroy is a collection from who knows where, so although they can be used as an initial citation, they don't establish notability.

Also, if "hermaphrodite" was originally used for people, then it's the botanical use that's derived, and it would be odd to now claim that its use for people is incorrect because of that. I've heard people object that "organic" is a misnomer for produce or agriculture because all food is carbon-based and therefore organic by the chemical definition of that term. But it's the chemical definition that's the specialized usage and therefore arguably incorrect, because much organic chemistry does not occur in organisms. One could argue the same for 'hermaphrodite'. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. El_C 12:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This is about the naming of Pluto

Not the naming of Ceres or Juno or Vesta. At the time when Pluto was named, in the world in which Pluto was named, Pluto was a planet and Ceres was an asteroid (and arguably still is, the sources contradict). By the way, your semi-retired banner is looking increasingly anachronistic too. Serendi^podous 12:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

They were all named as planets. The names were all chosen as the names of planets. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Also: until the 1950s minor planets were still planets, although with many reservations. In 1941 Nicholson wrote: The sun’s family of planets is divided according to size into three natural groups: the four major planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune; the five terrestrial planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and Pluto; and the countless minor planets or asteroids. The asteroids are so small relative to the other planets that their admission to planetary rank is generally qualified by reservations that are almost apologetic. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

English language map

Hi Kwamikagami, I appreciate all your work cleaning up these language maps for accuracy lately. Just a question, I saw you replaced File:English language distribution.svg with the current map on the English language article, but the former seems to display all global entities whereas the current lacks some places like Jersey and Maldives. It also shows an unnecessary subdivision of Brazil, which isn't impacted in anyway like Canada is. Do you think it'd be more accurate to revert to the former map, or at the very least remove those subdivisions from Brazil? Thanks. - Moalli (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither map shows the Maldives as anglophone, though we could add a grey dot to the current map.

Yeah, best to fix up Brazil. We could add Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man; I'd just subsumed them under the British Isles. — kwami (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Does that take care of it? — kwami (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It should! Might be me being picky with aesthetics but I also don't think subdivisions on Australia or the U.S. are necessary as on the former map. But it's not a big issue. Thanks again! - Moalli (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Zhang-Zhung" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zhang-Zhung has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § Zhang-Zhung until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

IP block

{{unblock reviewed |1=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 98.97.60.219. It doesn't matter that I've signed in; I can't even edit my own acct. A number of people in town use this host. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami#top|talk]]) 01:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |decline = What you are describing is a proxy. Yamla (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)}}

@Yamla: so wait, you're saying that I can't even edit my own account, even when signed into my account, because of the town I'm in? Isn't half the point of having an account so that you're not caught up in stuff like this? — kwami (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. Please reread Template:Blocked p2p proxy. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla:, okay, thanks. The people who set up the network don't know anything about that, so I'm probably just stuck.

I thought signing into an account was a way around that. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, no longer blocked. — kwami (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Old edits from 2010

Hi. I just noticed that back in 2010, you made a series of AWB edits to change [-a] to [-ə] for diphthongs in Thai pronunciation keys. This doesn't really match the IPA manual's conventions, and many (most? all?) of the changes appear to have been removed in later edits by Potapt. Just for the record, do we have agreemment not to retain those 2010 changes? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember. If the WP key for Thai uses [a], then that's what we should follow. If that's not accurate, we should change the key first and then the articles to match. I suspect that's what we did in 2010. — kwami (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Afrikaans on Ethnologue

Hi Kwami. Hope you are well. I think that you inadvertently removed the link when introducing the "ref name" here and no-one has picked up on it. However, what I find odd is that it does not generate the usual error message "Cite error: The named reference [....] was invoked but never defined". That message comes up only if I add the "dead link" tag to it in the infobox. If I add it to the body, nothing happens. Also, if I add the tag, it removes "e19" as source number 1 and reenter it as number 90, just above "Afrikaans vs Zulu row brewing at schools". Perhaps you can figure out the mystery. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Sunda-Sulawesi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sunda-Sulawesi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Sunda-Sulawesi until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Pluto Off-Topic Reverting

Hi. I disagree with your edit. Including a mention of elements named after planets on the topic of elements named after planets is clearly on topic. In any case, I think this goes against WP:DONTREVERT. GuguboWIKI (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be fine for the planet article, but has nothing to do with Pluto. "Nothing to do with" is the same as "off topic". — kwami (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion was listed at WP:3O and so I am commenting here in response. I do think the added material is not particularly relevant to the article; the uranium and neptunium examples are included to provide contextualization for why plutonium was named after Pluto, because at the time Pluto was considered a planet, as Uranus and Neptune are, whereas the Ceres and Pallas examples are elements that were named after (what was then considered) asteroids. While Ceres and Pluto are now both considered Dwarf Planets, they were not at the time they were named, making the content added to the Pluto article not particularly relevant to that article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Font to display IPA/ext-IPA symbols in browser

Hi Kwami, I want to be able to display certain IPA symbols, and ext-IPA symbols in my browser whenever I view various WP articles that display these symbols within the phonology section of the each article. Which is a font that should be downloaded and installed in order to display these symbols? Do I have to download and install a Unicode font? How do I do it, and how does all this work? Please let me know, and provide me links if you can. Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fdom. My preferred Latin/IPA font is Gentium (Book) Plus. If you prefer sans-serif, there's Andika. I believe they have the same inventory. They're free, and are kept pretty much up to date as Unicode adds characters. They have good diacritic rendering. I don't know of any pay font that's as good. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide me the links to download them please? I want to be able to display these symbols all across the internet, especially the Wikipedia pages here that use them. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There are links in the articles I linked to. — kwami (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(page stalker comment) @Fdom5997:, installing one of those fonts will only enable display of the symbols on your computer. They won't enable display of "these symbols all across the internet" unless every reader on the internet has also installed them, which is most unlikely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but how can I display them on WP articles, whenever I read them? Fdom5997 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You can set a default font in the preferences for your browser. Or you can change the CSS file for your WP account. I've changed my /monobook.css, but that only works for text tagged as 'IPA' or 'Unicode'. Add /monobook.css to the end of the URL of my user page to see the code I'm using. There may be a better way now; I did that in 2005. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Passing your turn in janggi (Korean chess)

Can't read Korean, so asking you for help (or if you know someone who might be able to help).

David Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (2007) implies you can pass your turn any time you like (p. 250: A player may pass his turn, hence no stalemate or zugzwang.) But H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess (1913) only allows it for players with a bare king (p. 137: A ‘bare’ General is not obliged to move at all. In this case the player simply turns his General over when it is his turn to play.) English Wikipedia agrees with Pritchard. So, what do reliable Korean sources say the actual rule is? (Murray is much older, so even if what he said isn't the modern rule, it may be that he correctly reported the rules of his time.) Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a ref I can check, but WP-ko says,

④ 장기는 자신이 둘 차례에 한수 쉼을 할 수 있어 상대에게 다음 수를 넘길 수 있습니다. ⑤ 서로 이길수 없는 경우는 "빅" 이라 하여 비기게 되는데 무승부를 뜻합니다.

Best I can make out, that says you can pass your turn, and if your opponent then also passes, then the game is a draw. — kwami (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! So Pritchard is probably right for today, as otherwise you couldn't have two consecutive passes outside a two-bare-kings situation (which is already an obvious draw). Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A new paper calling Sedna, Quaoar, and Gonggong dwarfs

Here. (The paper itself is interesting too, of course.) Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

hey, I know some of those people! thanks. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Pondicherry

Category:WikiProject Pondicherry has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:WikiProject Puducherry. Please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

हमार मदद किन्ही Wikipedia को नौ बढ़िया बनाई खातिर, आवर्ह वाली अनुसंधान प्रक्रिया में बोलवा भेजई।

प्रिय Kwamikagami धन्यवाद तोहर मेनहत खातिर Wikipedia बढ़िया बनाई। ठ निमंत्रण भाइ आवई वाली अनुसंधान प्रक्रिसर मा हिस्सा लेई खातिर, ई अनुसंधान से नै विभिन्न भाषा/बोली मा Wikipedia संपादन, अनुवाद और पाठ से सम्ंबधित भाइ। https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3y2jaWBVil1X1bg?Q_Language=hi अगर आप अपने सुदाय में कुछ और के जानत है न त, कृपा करिक ओन लोगन तक संदेष पहुँचाई देई। ई सर्वेषण तृतीय पक्ष के माध्यम से नै कीन्हा जावत है एह के खातिर कुछ और शर्त होई सक थ। https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:MinT_Research_Privacy_Statement/hi गोपनीयता और डाटा संचालन क अधिक जानकारी खातिर देखई। EAsikingarmager (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

On the renaming of Western and Eastern Baltic languages

Hello, Kwamikagami. The decision to rename the aforementioned pages was made in order for them not to fall out of context with other related language articles (e.g., East Slavic, not Eastern Slavic, West Germanic, not Western Germanic). SeriousThinker 22:40, 8 November 2023 (BST)

The name's not the issue, it's creating duplicate page histories that's the problem. You'll need to actually move the page. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I cannot do that by myself as West Baltic languages already exists as a redirect page. SeriousThinker 11:30, 10 November 2023 (BST)

Nomination of Voiceless velar implosive for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Voiceless velar implosive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiceless velar implosive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sign language handshape diagrams

Kwami, I noticed you uploaded file:Signuno abc.gif, and was wondering how you created the handshape images. I would like to get a good, consistent, full set of sign language handshapes in the six standard orientations - palm away, in, towards, up, sideways, and down - for documenting manual alphabets and as a resource for creating standard sign language word images. Any help I can get from you would be appreciated. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 04:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't. It was just a free image.

I did draw one by hand once, but don't know where the scan might be. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Abaali/Bali name

Hello! Could you please explain why you moved the Abaali page to the Bali people (Adamawa)? I wasn't clear what your edit summary (wpn) referred to and I'm not sure that this is necessary a better or more common name for either the people or the language. I've been having a difficult time finding sources so knowing the most commonly used name would be very helpful. Thanks! Kazamzam (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: It might be important to note that the move merry-go-round started with an undiscussed sock move made by a globally banned editor (whose obvious intention is not allowing ethnic groups outside of Indonesia to have the same name as ethnic groups from Indonesia; they even don't stop from producing blatant hoaxes for that purpose[2]).

I was about to restore Bali people (Nigeria) (with the most natural and NPOV disambiguator for an ethnic group, viz. its geographical location) per WP:BANREVERT, but given the recent lively move history and the current AfD, I have refrained from it. –Austronesier (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: oh my, that's quite an SPI history. Thanks for the clarification - hoping someone can WP:HEYMANN-ify it into decent shape and then we can sort out the naming. Kazamzam (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Bali" appears to be the usual name in English, per ISO, Glottolog, etc. In general, we try to use the same name for the people and language. There are some exceptions, but that's the MOS default. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Question on an old edit

Hello Kwamikagami,

It seems you were the one who added the estimate of the number of Interlingua speakers here: diff. I've been looking into the article some lately, and I found a PDF of Fiedler's "Phraseology in Planned Languages" (albeit... not from the official site... so maybe it's inaccurate? Seems doubtful though). However, I can't find any claim there that Interlingua has "a few hundred" speakers, nor can I find the claim edited in later that there are "1500 written speakers" (probably not added by you, though?). Do you know where it is in the article? Maybe I just missed it. Or is it in another article? SnowFire (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, 13 years is a bit long to remember specific sources. I suppose I could've copied the wrong source, and can only assume I didn't. There's a 2007 article by the same name and the same author, so maybe they don't match on this point?

What's a "written speaker," BTW? — kwami (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Beats me what a written speaker is, I'm not the one who added that! Probably just made up. (Side note: A lot of stuff in the Interlingua article seemed to be just... made up. Or at least were wildly overplaying extremely pedestrian things. It used to make it sound like Interlingua was taught as a regular college course at one particular college, but investigating showed that it was more like a one-time two week thing taught on the college grounds, basically about as important as your local college agreeing to host a fanclub for an event.)

Okay, I checked, and yes, it's in the 2007 paper (but not the 1999 paper). Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume they mean being able to write the language without being able to speak it. For a language without any native speakers, that's a measure of importance when comparing it to similar languages. We need a source, though. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's the edit that changed the figure. Anon. IP, no ref, and they didn't specify written language. It may be a reasonable figure, but no way to check. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

With this TikTok series, there may be increased interest in the language, but I don't know how many might go on to be productive in it. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo to FAR

I have nominated Decipherment of rongorongo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

use of "planetoids" for worlds

Found an interesting paper using a 400 km diameter threshold. Though, unusually, it includes Vesta (okay, I get it, it's thinking about geology) and Proteus(!), but not Mimas (which is just under 400 km). TNO dwarfs other than Pluto and Charon are not considered since they weren't explored (I assume the same applies to Pallas and Hygiea). Double sharp (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool! I can use this. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The silicate fractions in Table 4 are interesting, too. (And also another source for the statement that Tethys and Iapetus are basically almost pure iceballs. Mimas too probably, but it wasn't included.)

P.S. do you think it's worth adding Proteus' data to planemo-moons lists, naturally with a big caveat? I was sceptical at first, but by now I've actually found some biting the bullet and accepting the arbitrary "larger-than-Mimas" threshold for moons (including this one, Planetary Society with a maybe, and I think one of the geophysical definition posters). Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd include Mimas and exclude Proteus. For all I know, Proteus might be an ex-planemo that's been battered out of shape, but the same's true for Phoebe and Vesta and we don't count them. — kwami (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

True enough. In that case, doesn't the mountain on 2002 MS4 disqualify it also? It's proportionally larger than the Rheasilvia central peak. Double sharp (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Presumably, but the resolution is so low that I'd personally be wary of making any claims. I suspect that when we get better images of large TNOs, we'll find that the 400-km limit from the icy, 2nd-generation mid-Solar system moons with histories of tidal heating does not transfer to ice-rock TNOs that don't have such a thermal history. It already appears to be the general consensus that the DP/planemo limit is more likely to be around 1,000 km. But if we count Vesta and Pallas as "planetoids", then it would seem reasonable to count MS4 as well. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've thought for a while now that the 400-km limit didn't have much behind it. Below 1000 km, we meet only Enceladus (can't argue with that), Miranda (visibly very battered), Proteus (not even round), and Mimas (OK, but not even 400 km). If we count asteroids, then Pallas and Vesta fail it, but admittedly it was even then accepted that these rocky bodies come from a different regime. Considering that Enceladus is in a special position due to tidal heating, it seems like the 400km rule never really was that supported by evidence. Though I suppose the "is it larger than Mimas" rule at least has its own kind of honesty, along the lines of "yeah, the whole thing is a continuum, so here's an arbitrary line and let's be done with it".

I'd be willing to bite the bullet and say that even Phoebe is fair game. With that as a standard, probably even some of the sub-1000km TNOs like Varuna will show some incomplete evolution. But somehow few want to go as far down as 200km diameter for the threshold, except for Andrew Lesh who thinks even smaller Puck is worth including too. So I guess that's just me. Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, do you know where their density for Proteus comes from? On WP we only have a generic estimate. Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking. But it seems that they exclude Vesta and Proteus from the cat 'planetoid', including them for comparison because they are the largest irregular bodies and just being sloppy with their wording. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it might just be Croft 1994. Same numbers we use, no error bars. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. If you mean Croft 1992, then that paper has an interesting statement in the abstract: Proteus' sphericity is near unity, but it has one of the roughest surfaces known. Thus Proteus is a transitional object in the irregular-spherical shape spectrum for icy satellites: its global figure is relaxed, but its surface features are unrelaxed. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how that would differ from Vest and Pallas. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it, Planetary-mass moon#Clearing of orbit now has a claim that 400 km diameter is required for a satellite to "clear its orbit". But surely this is not really true, given that much smaller moons like Pan can clear a channel in Saturn's rings? I'd rather think that (say) Jupiter's system, if we pretend it's a star, has four "inner planets" (Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea, Thebe) with "asteroid belts" and "near-Amalthea/Thebe asteroids" (the rings) between them, and then four "outer planets" (Galileans), all surrounded by an "Oort cloud" more perturbed by objects outside the system and no longer lining up in the plane (irregulars). Double sharp (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly BS. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. in terms of different criteria interesting different groups of scientists: the theoretical limit for a nuclear structure to form is about 10⁻²² s, but the theoretical limit for the nucleus to grab an electron cloud is about 10⁻¹⁴ s. Therefore, extrapolation suggests that somewhere in maybe the 130s and 140s we might get atomic-number values that the physicists will agree exist as nuclides but the chemists will argue are not really elements (because the nucleus falls apart before it captures the electron cloud, so chemistry is impossible). I expect a fun argument to follow if this materialises. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And when (if) we get to nuclides that even if stable couldn't form neutral atoms because of relativistic limits. I don't think anyone expects another island of stability up there, but if there were, what if we had nuclides that were stable enough to engage in ionic chemistry, but not covalent. would we then need to reconsider the ones that decayed before they could grab any electrons? — kwami (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on Extended periodic table#Relativistic Dirac equation, it'd rather be the other way round: such nuclides cannot be totally ionised, because spontaneous pair creation would fill the shells that fell into the negative continuum. Chemical ionisation wouldn't go as far as that, though. With that said, the question of how this interacts with nuclear lifetimes would be fun. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Although come to think of it, we already see the former situation with Z=0. Physicists start the table of nuclides with the free neutron, but chemists won't allow it as an element, because it cannot possibly grab an electron cloud. So there sort of is a precedent; but with islands expected around 120-ish and 164-ish, it'd be awkward to have a hole between them. :) Double sharp (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)