User talk:Nardog/2020

Do not edit this page. This is the archive of User talk:Nardog for the year 2020. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.)
See the annual archives for 2008, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Template breaking

Thanks for your edit-summary note. I've contacted the script's manager to see what went wrong. Tony (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That and which

While descriptivist sources acknowledge that "which" is used in non-restrictive clauses, style manuals (such as the CMOS, at 5.220) will more often than not say things like "Which should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a preposition {the situation in which we find ourselves}." It goes on to note that British English observes the distinction less fervently than polished American English, FWIW. See CMOS 5.220--at 298 in the 16th edition.73.134.110.101 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The notorious I.P.

Hi Nardog! About this edit[1]: I have checked the subpage Hungarian phonology, and what the IP apparently did, was simply to copy the consonant table from there (which was recently and decently updated by kwami). So you may be right still to AGF. Don't know...–Austronesier (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I ultimately concur with Kbb2 at WT:LANG. Even if they were sometimes acting in good faith, as long as they are incapable of WP:ENGAGE, examining their edits one by one would be a waste of time.

I wouldn't call that "decent", I'm afraid. We seldom mark dental place of articulation in phonemic transcriptions. Nardog (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see that my "behavioral analysis" of the IP had wider benefits. –Austronesier (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Phonetics

Hope you're doing well! If you find some spare time, would you mind taking a look at Phonetics and giving feedback? I've spent way too long looking at it and could use a fresh pair of eyes to make sure I haven't gone off the deep end! — Wug·a·po·des 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Swedish/Norwegian IPA edits

Moved to Help talk:IPA/Norwegian § Stress and tone

Nomination for deletion of Module:A or an/testcases

Module:A or an/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Borders on IPA template

Thank you for the sandbox! The reason for all the edits is because when previewing changes to the chart, it doesn't properly render borders, so saving is was the only way to see if they were right. A number of students have come to me with confusion about the notation on the table, for example the missing borders and the use of "dots" below consonants instead of the expected ring. Where would be the appropriate place to request a fix for border rendering in the edit preview, or for a better rendering of combining ring below? Matthewmorrone1 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Matthewmorrone1: Thanks for your patience. when previewing changes to the chart, it doesn't properly render borders I don't know how that could be the case. I've never experienced or heard anyone experience anything like it.

Sounds like you should teach them how to use the zoom feature of whatever browser they're using. But since you've brought it up, I guess we could enlarge the symbols a little for better legibility. See Template:IPA pulmonic consonants/sandbox and let me know what you think.

As for the borders, please explain what you think is currently wrong and how you think it can be improved. The IPA defines ⟨ʁ⟩ and ⟨ʕ⟩ as fricatives so I don't think moving them down like you did on the sandbox is a good idea; the lack of borders already indicates their ability to signify approximant. [ʔ̞] is creaky-voiced while [h, ɦ] are considered approximant by some accounts, so drawing a border between [ɦ] and [ʔ̞] makes little sense to me. Nardog (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thanks for yours!

when previewing changes to the chart, it doesn't properly render borders See screenshots below.

I had been in the habit of printing it out, but either way figured if it confuses them it might confuse others.

The shifting of cells and the extra borders that had been near [ɦ] and [ʔ̞] are because I gave up halfway through the last time; it's a real pain modifying the table without the visual editor. As for the other borders, some students had believed the printouts were low quality or running out of ink. All I'm trying to do is add rowspan=2 to those cells so that the letter shows up centered vertically. While it would be straightforward to just remove the extra cells in the next row, that creates problems with the CSS rules with :nth-child/odd/even pseudoclasses. The cell containing ⟨ʁ⟩ is the only one so far that looks the way it's meant to (2nd screenshot) .

Matthewmorrone1 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Matthewmorrone1: It seems the font size for consonant tables was larger when I designed the current iteration of the templates but that was undone here, which I didn't notice until recently. I'll make it larger again (this time using a relative value).

Again, what are the changes you want to make to the table, exactly? By "what you think is currently wrong" I meant in Template:IPA pulmonic consonants/table, not Template:IPA pulmonic consonants/table/sandbox. Merging cells is a bad idea because, again, ⟨ʁ⟩ and ⟨ʕ⟩ canonically represent fricatives. The lack of borders indicates not only that some of the sounds they represent may be better regarded as approximants but also that both the fricatives and approximants are covered in the same articles. Note that our IPA templates are effectively navigation charts of the articles about phonetic sounds that exist on Wikipedia, not an illustrative chart of the IPA as an alphabet or an exhaustive list of the sounds it can represent. So I can't think of a situation where it is useful to print them out, let alone hand them out to students. I suggest you use the official chart for that. Nardog (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem editor?

Hi Nardog, I need a second opinion. Am I too tough (= WP:BITE) on them [2] (cf. also my comments on their talk page)? –Austronesier (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I don't think so. You did what I would have, and I thank you for that. The user has been on my watch as well, and I'm particularly concerned that they might have been removing "Pronunciation needed" tags too liberally (inaccurate transcriptions can be corrected, but removals of tags inserted by people who genuinely wanted to know the pronunciation are harder to track). It took me three warnings to make them realize that they should make use of edit summaries, so my impression of them isn't positive to be honest, but they indeed seem to be acting in good faith, so I guess we shall keep explaining. (Also, aren't Hungarian, Turkish, and Serbo-Croatian pronunciation all completely predictable from orthography?) Nardog (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian isn't, not when it comes to vowel length and tone (save for words stressed on the final syllable, including the monosyllabic ones - those can only feature the falling tone). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think they really act in good faith, albeit quite resistent to advice and still with critical competence issues. There's a bit of a dilemma here since many of their edits could be easily fixed by IPA-competent editors (like you, Kbb2...), but with DK-ish novices we'd better take the formal approach (warning about no OR, only add sourced content), because we can't run after them to clean up the mess, and they will start doing it again when they consider themselves competent enough when in fact they are still far from reaching that stage. –Austronesier (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"voiced" versus "voiceful"

Is it a mistake that i.p.a. uses "voiced" [sic] versus "voiceful"? 68.150.74.106 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate parm error on Template:Infobox Christian leader

Hi Nardog. It appears that this edit introduced a duplicate "type=sidebar", which is causing havoc on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template_calls. Davemck (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemck: Sorry, I should have looked more carefully. Thanks Jonesey95 for fixing it! Nardog (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

I really appreciate it. I'm still learning the basics of editing. Tino no (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tino no: You're welcome. Everybody has to learn the ropes, and Wikipedia has a policy against "biting" newcomers, so if someone is being rude to you, know that they're wrong—but it's not a one-way street, you're also expected to assume they're telling you what they're telling you to help you and, more importantly, the project. And use the "New section" link at the top when you want to open up a conversation on a talk page in the future (see WP:TALKNEW). Nardog (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Manners of articulation

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:IPA-euler-manners-features.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

IPA

Hello Nardog, I have just recently noticed that you reverted all of my recent edits. These follow the Help:IPA/ specific keys. Are the Greek articles asking for the English approximation, or the Greek one. Unless they are looking for modern Greek, then I'll change my edits. If you are absolutely sure these are the wrong pronunciations, then change it yourself. I have taken your comments extremely seriously and made sure all of them were correct. A lot of these articles have the language specific IPA, so why are these transcriptions wrong?. You are correct, there is no time limit for Wikipedia and the Pronunciation needed pages do not have to be certain. But it is my goal to provide pronunciations to these articles to make Wikipedia a better place and easier on the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacySinrich (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of entry

May I know the reason, why you removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voiced_retroflex_approximant&type=revision&diff=954365483&oldid=954362550, please? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@రహ్మానుద్దీన్: Because "inscriptions" don't have sounds and a Unicode proposal is not a reliable source. Nardog (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

§2 of the proposal actually says: "LLLA is the Unicode term for the native form in South Indian scripts of the voiced retroflex approximant." This is utter nonsense; Unicode does not define terms for written forms of sounds; they are concerned with characters and graphemes irrespective of their phonetic values. This even applies to "IPA characters," which may also be used for a variety of purposes including a variety of sounds. Besides the proposal is for a letter that is "undeniably attested" only "before the 10^th century". Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviving Projects

Hi @Nardog:. I am reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/Pronunciation_task_force & Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia as some people have expressed interest and have started working on these files. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Dealing_with_inactive_WikiProjects I am allowed to do this, so please do not revert my changes. Thank you. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Once again, I apologize for my unproblematic pronunciations. I am still learning how to properly source and cite my pronunciations. I also appreciate your patience with me. But the fact that you reported Flyer22 Frozen, to WP:ANI.Macy 14:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: Are you going to finish that sentence? Nardog (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh lord. I just wanted to say I really appreciated it. Macy 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Cinema for Peace

Hi, Thank you for your comment on my input in the Cinema for Peace page. I'm a newbie and don't know exactly how things work. The page has been having inaccurate information from what it seems to be trolls against it. The current version that you reverted to has mentioned to Gaddafi as it's guest, which is untrue as per the citation itself: Gaddafi came as a plus one to a guest and was not recognized at the Gala. It is clear from the wording that the edits were made to damage the reputation by someone holding grudges and not factual information. Could you please help in reverting the article to the version before 03.10.2019? Thanks for any help on this --Oslo95 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrigley, Northwest Territories

I understand I have had a problem with implementing unsourced pronunciations. But are any of these valid sources and can I base the pronunciation on these?

Mithun, Marianne (1999). The languages of native North America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
A Dictionary of the Verbs of South Slavey, (2004) Published by the Dehcho Divisional Educational Council, Ft Simpson NT Canada.
Phillip Howard. (1990) A Dictionary of the Verbs of South Slavey. Yelllowknife, Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Culture and Communications.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/dictionary-of-the-verbs-of-south-slavey/oclc/23215080

A lot of the sources use orthography to base the IPA, for example: The pronunciation of the Chipewyan language, [tènɛ̀sũ̀ɬìnɛ́jàtʰìɛ́] is not mentioned in any sources, but it is based solely on the orthography. So, for the article Wrigley, Northwest Territories, the orthography is from the language of South Slavey, the orthography is consistent so the pronunciation, like [tènɛ̀sũ̀ɬìnɛ́jàtʰìɛ́], is [pɛdzɛ ki]]. I am familiar with these languages and I know if the orthography is entirely consistent with no variation, So I am talking about the languages in which I am fluent in and for which I know the pronunciation of the word and in which it is "one letter per sound" So my method is valid. Macy Sinrich (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree

I disagree about this, the user removed only a portion of your comments which is misleading. This is like modifying rather than deleting a another user's comments. Even on your own talk page that is not acceptable. And clearly it was just a mistake. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: With all due respect you seem to have misread the diff. She removed my comment and indented her comment. There is no modification. Nardog (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

She removed only one of your comments in a thread. This is misleading. I stand by the reversion. I don't see why you insist on standing up for this disruptive user either, I think I am being very patient with her. She is wasting our time. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: No, I replied to Cullen and Macy separately, which is why I put them on different indentation levels and signed twice. She only removed the latter, which she was entitled to do. "She corrupted the meaning of another user's comments" is a gross mischaracterization and I suggest you retract the false accusation on her talk.

I'm not standing up for her, I just hate to see people think they don't need to assume good faith about someone just because they're a problematic user (see the second paragraph of WP:BATTLEGROUND). Nardog (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

—DIYeditor That was my talk page, I'm sorry for coming here Nardog, because I wanted to see if you responded to the Wrigley Question. Your now deleted comment "She corrupted the meaning of another user's comments" is ridiculous. You call me problematic, look who is the problematic one, this is not a social media, which means you cannot wrongfully accuse me of something that was on MY talk page and I was entitled to do. In true social media fashion, smh. Macy Sinrich (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: DIYeditor apologized for it. Now it is your turn to show your respect for him and move on. Nardog (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

/oʊ/

Where has /oʊ/ been decided for American English or where are Penelope Eckert's usages of a diphthongal notation? Wolfdog (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Former. Nardog (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant by convention. Are we opening ourselves up now to different phonemic notations on different (sub-)dialect pages that fall under American English? That's quite a leap, no? Wolfdog (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Do you have to do this precisely when we have an ongoing discussion about switching to ⟨e o⟩ in all (or at least most) articles on NAE? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm amazed by this reaction coming from Kbb2 of all people. I will respectfully cease and desist. Wolfdog (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your help

Please excuse the interuption; I am wondering if I can have your opinion about my posting on the talk page for Phonics. Thanks. John (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I just got on here and haven't had a chance to look at it yet 2601:2C0:4780:E3A0:E463:202B:6509:DC55 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ylvis page

Hey man, thanks for assuming I was editing in good faith. In retrospect I agree with your decision; my understanding of Norwegian phonology is not always as good as I like to think. At any rate, I just wanted to say I appreciate the way you made the correction, and it honestly did cheer me up a little even if my contribution can't stay up. Zacherymoe (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Barnstars schmarnstars: I hereby award Nardog the **Order of the Waxed Moustache** for his valiant work in implementing a change that I'd done no more than lazily suggest. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

While intonation and emphasis can make a phonemic difference, the reason I removed the second pronunciation on portmanteau is because that distinction is not there with that word; it's not ambiguous one way or the other and there is no difference in context between the two pronunciation, the only difference is preference/dialect. Considering how minor it is, I feel it's unnecessary to list both, lest articles would be listing every possible way to say words when that's already covered by wiktionary. --laagone ^talk 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Which reminds me: I've never understood why en:WP has both "blend (linguistics)" (the linguistics term for a linguistics phenomenon) and also "portmanteau" (not about actual portmanteaus, only passingly about portmanteau morphs, and largely about blends). But blends seem to be something of an obsession among "language experts" (scare quotes deliberate), to whose "common sense" and to "majority opinion" perhaps one must defer. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Let's go to Talk:Portmanteau and support Florian Blaschke, who (as I can see know) long has been advocating to reconquer the "hijacked" page Portmonteau from the "language experts". The current page is a WP:COATRACK (sorry, I couldn't resist the urge to mention this). –Austronesier (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Questionable edit: List of accolades received by Carol (film)

Please explain your deletion of this row in the list of accolades received. The named organization has a Wikipedia article and the entry is sourced. Your summary "COI/spam" is meaningless without an explanation. If you do not provide verification that supports your edit, it will be considered disruptive editing and reversed. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Look at the contributions of the IP who added the row. And this, this, this, this, this, and this. The articles Cinema for Peace and Cinema for Peace Foundation also appear to be written almost entirely by users with COI. I don't know what reputation the organization and the awards it gives out hold, but if they were legitimate awards that people take seriously, then I would expect to see trade media like Variety, THR and Deadline reporting nominations and wins each year. But I don't—all I see in them are passing mentions or reports about someone who showed up at their event, scattered over several years. I'm not opposed to all mentions of their awards, but I strongly suggest we include them only when reliable third-party sources are available. Nardog (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Major trade media does not necessarily report on small-potato awards, so don't hang your hat on that assumption; and waiting for a third-party to cover an obscure award may turn into an endless hold. The Cinema for Peace and Cinema for Peace Foundation may be recipients of focused editing, but until they are deleted by RfC consensus they are as legit to use in accolade lists as the Florida Film Critics Circle. Don't forget the point of WP:IAR. I am restoring the row until an RfD decides CfP and CPF should go. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Impossible sounds

Do you think that some sounds like "voiced glottal affricate" (ʔɦ) and truly voiced (modally voiced) glottal transition/"fricative" (h̬) are possible? Blockman9000 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They are absolutely possible. Macy Sinrich (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You told this to me? Blockman9000 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

EFH

Sorry this doesn't have the lovely templated message that comes with the other permissions, just a note that says Done [3]. Happy ~~editing~~ filtering. Cabayi (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

...there is {{Edit filter helpers topicon}} if that's a consolation. Cabayi (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't collect hats! Nardog (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

American and British differences

It's eluding me why entrepreneur gets /ɜːr/, while Schönberg and Depardieu get /ɜː/. The best I can gather is that we're basing this on spelling (of all things): that is, the physical letter ⟨r⟩. Is that literally just as deep as this goes? Wolfdog (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: It would surprise me if anyone who speaks a non-rhotic accent and uses linking, but not intrusive, R pronounced entrepreneur without /r/. CEPD indeed transcribes it with ⟨ʳ⟩ indicating linking R, not to mention rhotic speakers do pronounce it with /r/, be it NURSE or CURE. As the key notes, we should use /ɜːr/ if there's evidence rhotic speakers use NURSE even if it's not spelled with ⟨r⟩, as in Goethe and hors d'oeuvre. Nardog (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What minority of people have linking R but not intrusive R?? (If anything, this makes me think not of British accents but certain American accents, like non-rhotic Southern ones.) Don't the two phenomena almost always co-occur in Britain? I'm not trying to rehash the original /ɜː/ vs. /ɜːr/ debate already had among WP editors, but, on the page in question, we are deliberately distinguishing between standard American and standard British in our transcriptions: i.e., for example, generally ignoring, say, West Country details. So I just find it odd. (Presumably, your point though is that West Country speakers do pronounce Goethe with /r/.) Wolfdog (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm mainly talking about RP/GA (and adjacent accents). Even though the key is equivocal our diaphonemic system is an amalgamation of the two (and they're what the differences article is about—RoachPeter informally proposed that we merge it with Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation a couple years ago, which I agree with); there's just too much variation and too few sources out there to account for all or even a few of other varieties (especially on a lexical level—on which we are now—try finding descriptive sources on how speakers of a non-standard variety pronounce words like Goethe and pho if you dare). I know both have varied definitions and few people speak them natively in casual conversations, but they remain the models dictionaries describe and learners are taught. I'm pretty sure educated rhotic North Americans pronounce Goethe with NURSE, and learners aren't taught to use intrusive R. Nardog (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I hear ya. My only point is that we funnily use the RP/GA diaphonemic system (without any slight wavering) on a page whose content is deliberately non-diaphonemic (i.e. RP versus GA). That said, maybe it is the best choice for our sanity, since we easily and often get into the weeds.

Hmm... interesting about RoachPeter's informal proposal. The intentions behind differentiating what the page calls "phonemic realization" and "phonemic distribution" are quite clear to me, and yet, actually looking at the two, I see that there is a huge amount of overlap. (And, it indeed makes much better sense for citation reasons.) The discussion could certainly be revived. Of course, if approved, someone would have to do the daunting task of merging two already very discombobulated pages. Wolfdog (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually find that article illustrative of the usefulness of our diaphonemic system—it allows us to highlight lexically conditioned differences without having to deal with systematic differences intrinsic in the phonologies. Nardog (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Lithuanian phonology undoes

Moved to Talk:Lithuanian phonology

Uyghur phonology

Hi Nardog! I want to clean up the vowel section of Uyghur phonology with the help of this source:

Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991), Spoken Uyghur, London and Seattle: University of Washington Press, ISBN 978-0-295-98651-7

Do you have access to it? I would like to have a second opinion about how I interpret Hahn's data (pp. 33–57), both whether I'm totally wrong, and if not, whether my reading is OR-ish or not. In a nutshell, I think that Hahn's vowel phonemes are morphophonemes, while his orthographic representation is the actual surface phoneme level. Since you have worked with so much insight in Danish phonology, I'm sure you will quickly see the parallels. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: My familiarity with Turkic phonologies is extremely limited so I don't think I can be much of help, but yeah, saying /i, I/ (his notation) "share the same set of allophones" is pretty much like saying they contrast only morphophonologically. Comrie (1997)—Comrie, Bernard (1997), "Uyghur Phonology", in Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus), vol. 2, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 913–925, ISBN 1-57506-018-3—explicitly mentions morphophonemes and even has separate tables of phonemes and morphophonemes, so it definitely won't be OR if you cite it. He also says "A phonetic ï is possible in some styles of pronouncing Russian loanwords" (which is more measured than Hahn's characterization, "distinguished only in Russian loanwords" with no reference to a minimal pair), so the contrast seems at best marginal on the phonemic level. Nardog (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the article at present looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK of Uyghur language#Phonology so either Uyghur phonology should be a redirect to the section or the section should be shortened IMO. They also make little to no mention of prosody, which is a serious omission for a stand-alone article about a language's phonology so it would be lovely if that was rectified. Nardog (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is of enormous help! I haven't been aware of the Comrie source (I stumbled across Comrie&Kaye before ages and have completely forgotten about it). I have reinvented the wheel then, but this feels ok as long as it is round and spins. Comrie is perfect for the phonological framework, and Hahn is of best use for the details of phonetic surface realizations and morphophonology. And yes, these content forks need to be merged; I feel inclined to integrate Uyghur phonology back into the main page, since the latter is not exceedingly large and won't be, even if the Phonology section gets extended a bit. OTOH, having a separate page Uyghur phonology has its plus sides, like making it handier for phonology watchers (but also for drive-by vandals or inarticulate good-faith IPs/novices focussing on phonology). –Austronesier (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Glad I could help. I agree merging the phonology article back to the one about the language is probably the better course of action. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Chaos

When I saw that the whole poem had been added, I thought "copyvio"... but then realised that the poet died in 1946, ie 74 years ago, and Netherlands copyright lasts 70 years post mortem. It was published in his 1920 book, so if a US 95-years-after-publication applies it's OK by that too. (I don't know much about US copyright law but a quick read of Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Works_created_before_1978 suggests this. Are you sure this work is in copyright? @Cwmhiraeth: who cleared up after removal. PamD 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: The original version is in the public domain, but the longer version that was added likely isn't in the US. See wikisource:Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2017#The Chaos. Nardog (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks: so the 1923 version could legally be added from Wikisource ... though I think the article is fine with the top and tail samples and a link to Wikisource. I didn't realise it had been the subject of such discussion. The version I edited in 2008 seems to have had the original text, which was then replaced by the "full poem", and it's been in and out a few times since. Interesting, thanks. Hmm, perhaps the article needs to be expanded to describe the various versions of the poem which exist... ? PamD 14:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, the two versions are indeed described. It might still be interesting to quote the first few lines of both versions. PamD 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: In the page history, I see the longer versions were also added a couple times in the past. You might want to revdel them too. Nardog (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I assumed it was copyright but I may have been wrong. There was an addition of part of the poem on 16 March 2016‎. Is that partial version in copyright? If I were to revision delete that edit, and all the subsequent versions, it would seem excessive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I think the 2016 addition is small enough to pass as a quotation, but I suggest we delete Special:Diff/225347121 until the one before Special:Diff/288264993, and Special:Diff/533330983 until the one before Special:Diff/533507316, which are more excessive and could constitute copyvio. Nardog (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sissi0313

Re your speedy deletion request of Talk:Protruded vowel, what block or ban is Sissi0313 violating? I don't see a block, a user page banner, any links from any SPI case page, or any editing restrictions. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sissiyao313. If you saw no links from SPI, that's likely because you checked WhatLinksHere for the User: page, not its talk, while {{checkuser}} does the same thing as {{no ping}}.

I only placed the SD tag in order to disable the empty edit-protected request the banned user had placed. Should I have simply blanked it? Nardog (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I did. Anyway, you were right to tag the page for speedy deletion, but next time I'd put the master's name as a parameter to the tag (e.g., {{db-g5|Sissiyao313}}). Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject on open proxies discussion

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)

Help regarding module editing

load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:53 Uncaught URIError: URI malformed
    at decodeURIComponent (<anonymous>)
    at decoded (<anonymous>:308:378)
    at Function.$.cookie (<anonymous>:309:254)
    at Object.buildSection (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:27)
    at Object.build (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:29)
    at Object.create (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:17)
    at Object.addModule (load.php?lang=sq&mod…tor&version=7f3iz:8)
    at jQuery.fn.init.$.fn.wikiEditor (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:13)
    at HTMLDocument.<anonymous> (load.php?lang=sq&mod…tor&version=7f3iz:5)
    at mightThrow (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:50)
load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:53 Uncaught URIError: URI malformed
    at decodeURIComponent (<anonymous>)
    at decoded (<anonymous>:308:378)
    at Function.$.cookie (<anonymous>:309:254)
    at Object.get (<anonymous>:307:1717)
    at Object.$.wikiEditor.extensions.codeEditor (<anonymous>:290:1891)
    at jQuery.fn.init.$.fn.wikiEditor (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:13)
    at HTMLDocument.<anonymous> (<anonymous>:290:1297)
    at mightThrow (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:50)
    at process (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:50)

The errors I see. - Klein Muçi (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: I can't see the full URLs, as indicated by ellipses. Can you click on the items and tell me the full URLs? Nardog (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused as I have never worked with the console before for debugging reasons. I'm not really sure where to click. The errors show up in a reaally small mini-window and I had trouble even copying them. Is there any way to make that mini-window bigger? After that maybe I'm able to work with them and do what you told me to do. - Klein Muçi (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: Ah, rather, you have to right click on "load.php?..." to copy the full URLs. Click on the ellipsis icon at top right if you want to make it bigger. Nardog (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

https://sq.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?lang=sq&modules=ext.centralNotice.geoIP%7Cext.dismissableSiteNotice%7Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets%7Cjquery.ui&skin=vector&version=1oddq

These two? - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: Hmm, I tried enabling all gadgets and beta features on sqwiki and opening a module but the code editor showed up just fine. It could be a browser extension or setting that is interfering. Sorry I couldn't be of much help, but it's not an urgent problem unless other editors on sqwiki experience it too, after all. You can use the code editor by copying code, editing it on this site and then pasting it on sqwiki anyway.

Does entering mw.loader.getState('ext.codeEditor') or mw.loader.getState('ext.wikiEditor') into the console return anything other than "ready"? If not, then I have no idea. Nardog (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The real question is where to exactly enter it? - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: Don't you see a cursor blinking next to ">" at the bottom of the Console tab? Nardog (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I did now. It reads "ready" with both of them. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: Then I'm afraid I don't know what the cause is. Try WP:VPT if you really want to fix it, there are people much more skilled than I there. Nardog (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. Thank you a lot for trying! :)) - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ɭ͓

Can you tell me wtf is a [ ɭ͓ ] a mid centralised [ ɭ ] ? + Ive never seen .̽ being used below the character, i was adding a phonology table to the Ao Naga language and saw this [4] AleksiB 1945 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945: See [5]. PHOIBLE uses the subscript X to denote "frictionalized sounds", so their ⟨ɭ͓⟩ is equivalent to our ⟨ɭ˔⟩. It's a shame PHOIBLE Online doesn't link to the documentation. Nardog (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

abbrev template

Hey Nardog,

It your revert, you said, "removing {{abbr}} is particularly not helpful." I'm confused -- I can't see what difference it makes. All it does is generate a popup, which a plain link also does. It says e.g. "uvular" rather than "uvular consonant", but I can't see how that matters. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

As the template documentation explains, {{abbr}} is advantageous in terms of accessibility. The tooltip for "U" says "Uvular", not "Uvular consonant", because it is short for "Uvular", not "Uvular consonant", consistent with the pulmonic chart. Nardog (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Articulatory Setting

Sir! Peter Roach having written in English Phonetics and Phonology that it is difficult to confirm these settings scientifically and etc, I do not understand why there is no information about lack of scientific proofs. I am a reader of EnWiki, and, to tell you the exact truth, I think it to be very important to describe all points of view on that. You having edited the article on that, I do not understand why you have not added this point. I believe you to think this conception to be doubtful, therefore there is a controversy. That's why it is evident that the afore-said article is not completely correct. The article being incomplete, I cannot transcribe it.

In a word, I pray you to lay down the conventional point of view in the following article. The phrase Non-native speakers typically find the basis of articulation one of the greatest challenges in acquiring a foreign language's pronunciation. Speaking with the basis of articulation of their own native language results in a foreign accent, even if the individual sounds of the target language are produced correctly. seems not to be conventional.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: I have had a number of messages on this, from the same person I believe. See posts on my Talk page, numbered 61-4. I find it very difficult to understand what he wants, and he doesn't seem to understand my attempts at a reply. RoachPeter (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoachPeter: I suggest you simply ignore them. Wikipedia is not a social network, a soapbox, or a place to "right great wrongs". You have no obligation to interact with them and you clearly have much more important things to do! (I've warned them about posting the same message on multiple user talks, which they seem to have heeded, but if they continue to pester you or anyone we shall warn them and, if they still do, report to the admins.) Nardog (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

added the proper way

On two sites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_front_rounded_vowel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_retroflex_trill) you maked the audio "proper way". How did you did this. I wantet to "add the proper way" too, but i didn't know how. Can you tell me how you did this? YodaMaster445 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@YodaMaster445: They were done here and here. Articles and sound samples about IPA symbols are centralized at Module:IPA symbol/data, which is then used by templates like {{Infobox IPA}} and {{IPA link}}. Be very careful not to break it though (and refrain from making potentially controversial changes to it) since many pages rely on it. If you're unsure about a change you want to make, bring it up on the talk page. Nardog (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!

Allophones

Heya, re: [6], your edit comment calls the Yotsugana phenomenon a "merger" rather than an example of "allophones". I totally agree that this is a merger, but my understanding is that mergers and allophones are separate phenomena, and that mergers sometimes result in allophones. For much of the Tōhoku region, じ and ぢ are treated as one phoneme, such that a speaker from Kyūshū, who would distinguish じ and ぢ, is perceived as using allophonic forms of the underlying phoneme /d͡ʑɨ/ (or however it should be represented). This would seem to fit the description of allophones as on the [[Allophone]] page. No? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I don't think linguists normally call the resultant realization of a neutralization "an allophone" of the two phonemes. Rather, it is in the accents that do not merge /(d)zi/ and /(d)zu/ that [ɨ] after /(d)z/ (etc.) can be regarded as a good example of a vowel allophone in Japanese. (I assume you meant "じ and ず" or "ぢ and づ", not "じ and ぢ". The merger between じ and ぢ or between ず and づ involves a neutralization of consonants, not vowels.) Nardog (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I added "(Alveolo-)" (in this page) because of /t͡ɕ/ /d͡ʑ/ etc and within brackets because of /j/ AleksiB 1945 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945: You don't get to revert to the version you like just because you "talked to" those who reverted you. Whenever a dispute arises, do not engage in an edit war and discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than on the users' (so that other editors can read the discussion and chime in). Nardog (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: 'oo' is commonly used to describe [u] and 'ee' for [i] the same with tʂ/ʈʂ i mean its not like you gota use a ton of diacritics there is a single character for it, also considering that many of the words are transcribed under narrow transcription

Why is this even a thing? I didnt add or delete something without giving a source or something like that i just changed (t) to (ʈ) AleksiB 1945 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Its just too small of a issue to post it in the main page's talk page AleksiB 1945 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

German IPA

Hey! Could you please watch this video and this one regarding the vocalic R in High German? The IPA is meant to help people with pronunciation of words and you're doing kind of the opposite by reverting a page everytime someone corrects something wrong. Also, no, ʁ absolutely does not represent a wide range of sounds. ʁ represents a voiced uvular fricative and only that. Dankeschön! X Æ A-Twelve (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@X Æ A-Twelve: In transcriptions using the {{IPA-de}} template and thus linked to the Help:IPA/Standard German key, ⟨ʁ⟩ indeed represents a wide range of mutually non-distinctive sounds (allophones) belonging to the /r/ phoneme, so that the transcriptions can be interpreted and pronounced in each reader's own accent rather than prescribing a single "correct" form of pronunciation (which is completely in line with the IPA's principles, by the way, since narrowness is a continuum—see IPA Handbook, pp. 28–30). As explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, deviating from the linked key in some but not all transcriptions is disruptive because it engenders inconsistency between articles and renders the key less helpful. If you wish to change the way German /r/ is represented on Wikipedia, bring up the issue on the key's talk page. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the diphthongs *[aɐ̯] and *[aːɐ̯] do not exist in German. These are non-IPA notations used in dictionaries to represent the monophthongal [aː] that stems from historical /ar/ and /aːr/. Sol505000 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)