User talk:Uanfala/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Saraiki

The RM closed the way I expected, derailed by the discussion. Were I an uninvolved admin, I would have probably moved it to Saraiki but.... My suggestion is that, the next time, you don't leave the suggested title open. Either build a strong case for Saraiki language or suggest a move to Saraiki. Most likely, an RM request to the latter would have worked this time around because a hefty chunk of the discussion was on whether it is a language or a dialect. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I can't really say I'm surprised either. I'm finding it difficult to imagine how this is going to get solved in the future, any discussion that gets started is going to get derailed when the socks flood in and the closer of the previous discussion comes throwing the teddies out of the cot.

My confidence in the community's ability to handle controversies like this is decreasing by the day, and I don't think I'm going to have the optimism, or the energy to try dealing with all this mess again. – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the derailment of the discussion is also partly my fault – it would have been better if I hadn't gone on trying to clarify the silly minor misunderstandings that dominated the discussion the last couple of days, right? – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Imo your only faults were not focusing on one title and in not waiting for SPIs before responding to socks. The actual discussion was derailed by someone else. FWIW, I see the article before you worked on it and the article after you've worked on it and I think you should be proud of the work you've done. And I say this even though I'm completely at sea whether this is a language or a dialect :) --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You deserve!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless work on cleaning up the Saraiki page and trying to get the page retitled. Editors like you are what make the Wikipedia work! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Re your GF hatnote that I just reverted.... FYI, WP:NLAWYER is not an "essay". Rather it was a proposed notability WP:GUIDELINE.... but it failed. So we shouldn't point to it as though it were alive and kicking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message, NewsAndEventsGuy. I didn't want to have the hatnote refer to it as "failed proposal for a notability guideline" as that's too clunky, and I reckoned "essay" would be an appropriate brief generic term to use. Maybe it wasn't? I'd imagine any failed guidline is a type of essay, isn't it? If not, then I'll bring back the hatnote with a more accurate descriptor.
  This hatnote is necessary because the page is the target of the WP:LAWYER shortcut, and there is a very similarly named shortcut WP:LAWYERS that points to the failed guideline proposal, so each of the two pages ought to have hatnotes pointing to the other. If you don't want to have that hatnote, you would need to get rid of WP:LAWYERS, and you have a chance to do that as it's currently being discussed at RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

got it, I will try another flavor hat note to serve that purpose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Unit-modifier hyphens

Hi, Uanfala. A while back, in this RfD discussion, the question came up about how and when to use hyphens to link two words describing a noun. I found that I was unable to explain, even to myself, just when to apply the hyphen, and our article leaves me unsatisfied. ("Ambiguity" is too subjective; some of their "unambiguous" examples seem ambiguous to me.)

However, I just ran across a very good explanation (scroll down to "#5) that helps me a good deal, and I thought you might like to check it out. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why! Now it makes sense. Thank you for sharing it! After that RfD discussion I realised I should finally catch up with English punctuation (something I've somehow managed to get by without bothering much with), but every time I've walked past the part of the library with relevant material, I've always ended up sidetracked by some unrelated book. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:POINT and creation of projectspace redirects

Hello, your creation of redirects (namely Wikipedia:Village gallows and Wikipedia:FOXHUNTING) seem to coincide with the ongoing discussions at RfD relating to similar redirects such as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_7#Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE. For one, contrary to what you have stated, these redirects are highly unlikely to be useful as they are not useful as shortcuts, also, they can be harmful as to leaving a wrong impression and may lead to others assuming bad faith. Secondly, your creation of the redirects seem to be disturbing the encyclopedia to illustrate a point, as they seem to be directly in relation to the discussions at RfD, if you have points to make which you have not made, please comment in the relevant discussions rather than cause further hassle for other editors by unnecessarily creating redirects. Regards. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, as recent creations they do stand a chance of being deleted. But otherwise yeah, everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala's sock

Hello! Just wanted to confirm that User:Uanfala's sock is yours. Is it? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast. I've just created it, yes!

But if you're up for hunting suspicious users, here are two that are not mine: User:Alafnau (that's my username backwards) and User:Ktm27 (for the last one you'll have to be able to see their e-mail address to see the connection). – Uanfala (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki

My suggestion. Forget about renaming any of these articles for the next few months. Better still, forget about the articles. Do something else and come back later. Time to destress! --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not the articles, but the community's overall inability to deal with a discussion in a sensible way that is the source of my continuing disappointment. I was actually thinking of trying something similar to what you suggest, and that is abstaining from making edits to the talk and project namespaces. Should help in focusing on what we're here for after all, no?

However, I don't think we should let down all the editors who participated in the RM or helped keep all the sockery at bay. All this effort shouldn't go to the wind simply because of a reckless closure. I'm taking this to MRV in a couple of days, unless someone beats me to it (which would be more than welcome!), or unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to. – Uanfala (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the bright side. Now at least you know what you are up against. So please take a break from all this and you can come back to it later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so much intrested in Saraiki language?Please can you visit wikipedia page Languages of Pakistan#Sub-provincial languages.I am new here on wikipedia and please correct title page Saraiki. User:Goodboy991|Goodboy991]] (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fluxion

I see you reverted my deletion request, saying that I had to move the page to Fluxion (disambiguation), but I've already done that by creating the page. Sorry for not making it clear, is it OK with you if I revert your edit? Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 00:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What you've done is a cut-and-paste move. This is discouraged as it doesn't preserve the article histories. What you're aiming at is moving Fluxion to Fluxion (disambiguation) and then moving Fluxion (mathematics) to Fluxion. This is precisely the kind of thing that WP:RMT is for. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I thought about this before I did it, but I decided it wouldn't be a copyvio because I changed the wording and there's not enough text to constitute it, only one sentence for each entry. If you want, I can stick the copied template on the talk page. Laurdecl ^talk 01:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me, as I already get notified by any edit to my talk page. Your idea would make sense for example in the case of a merge, but you don't need to go to such a length for a simple page move. And of course it wouldn't be a copivio, even if you hadn't changed it – no text content on wikipedia is under copyright. But that's not the issue here. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhh, that is the issue here. The only reason page histories are preserved is because Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the CC-BY-SA, which says that attribution to the author must be left. Anyway, it's best to play it on the safe side, so I've tagged the disambig with db-copypaste. Laurdecl ^talk 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it's done now, in case you're interested. Thanks for the input. Laurdecl ^talk 08:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If what I've said doesn't make much sense, you can have a look at WP:MV#Before moving a page and the sections that follow. – Uanfala (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unclear what you are requesting

Hello Uanfala. I am trying to understand your edit here. Are you withdrawing your request for a technical move? EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. I was disagreeing with converting it into an RM. I don't think any further action is necessary, but feel free to revert if you think that was out of process. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Mid-Atlantic accent

Alright. I see how I stepped out of line by striking through somebody else's comment. I won't do it again.LakeKayak (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, that happens. Just adding that doing that is acceptable, but only in extremely limited circumstances, see the last point of WP:TPO. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit "ph" is more like fork than pork

Hi,

I would like to know the justification behind  reverting my edit.  "ph" to be like "fork" was reverted back to "pork". Isn't "pork" just "p" with more emphasis? My mother tongue is Marathi which has both the sounds and I have been in the U.S. for many years and my impression how pork is spoken is closer to "p" than "ph".Jkulkarni (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I have studied some Sanskrit in High School and to me the sound "ph" in phalam (fruit) had always sounded more like the English 'f' sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkulkarni (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The more emphasis that you observe in the p of "pork" in English is in fact aspiration (see English_phonology#Obstruents). And it's precisely this aspiration that distinguished Sanskrit ph from p. In English this aspiration is absent if the phoneme is preceded by s, hence Sanskrit p is approximated, in that article, to the sound of p in "spin". The Sanskrit pronunciation taught in high schools today isn't a particularly reliable source for how Classical Sanskrit was pronounced: you'll find that people who've been to other schools (especially in other parts of the country) pronounce things differently from the way you're used to. The variation is due to either regional traditions or the effect of a speaker's first language. I don't know how it is in Marathi, but neighbouring Gujarati is known for pronouncing the aspirates (esp. ph) as fricatives (f in this case) and that's a pretty common sound change anyway. If you're interested to read more about the phonetics of Sanskrit, there's a decent body of literature out there, but Allen's book (given in the bibliography) would be a good starting point. – Uanfala (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horizontal and vertical, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

regarding your edits in punjabi language article

mr Uanfala why you are making edits in article Punjabi language without knowing facts about languages complex in Punjab region? you have made edit writing "rm irrelevant and sloppily copied text from Saraiki dialect)" what problem you have? do not you know many articles on wikipedia are interrelated and in this article we have write about seraiki to clear the facts.Earliar article was showing Punjabi and its relation with other languages/dialects but you just torted. 116.202.252.189 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If you "know the facts" feel welcome to contribute your knowledge, but please bear in mind that you'll need to support that with sources. And each particular fact needs to actually be in the sources given. What I remember removing from that article was 1) several paragraphs lifted from another article; 2) a confused map, and 3) a paragraph of personal reflections. None of these things belonged there. If you find a way to show Punjabi's "relation with other languages/dialects" in a way that is concise, encyclopedic and backed up by sources, by all means do. – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that you've restored a whole lot more of the problematic content I had previously removed. Why each of the removed bits is problematic – that's explained in the edit summaries that you can see next to each edit in the article's history. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

about article Punjabi language

It should be clear that punjabi is spoken in India and Pakistan means two different socio-cultural-political environments,mr UNFALA trying to mix these two different conditions, 1 In article readers have right to know about Dogri and Seraiki in detail to know what developments took in history and i have written with sources.

2 MR Unfala why you want delete map here,it clears the section 'frontier dialects' issue'.please go through map ,it show you historical punjab and nothing negative written about claims or constitutional provisions about Dogri and Seraiki.then why you deleting facts based on souurces.

3 About video :- video is shoot in India ,where Bahawlpuri or Multani people identify yhem as Punjabi, in video the girl herself calling BAHAWALPURI THEN HOW MR UNFALA you can link this video only with seraiki?

please understand Punjabi regarding India and Pakistani perspectives based on government facts.Shemaroo (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There really is no need to paste the same comment on more than one talk page. I've replied at Talk:Punjabi language. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindustani language

You should probably start a discussion about the dialects part of the infobox on the talk page, given how much reverting is going on. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think if there's any problem anywhere, it's in the article's lede, which could probably be more explicit about the extent of the meaning of "Hindustani". – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem I think is that it isn't clear to me whether the article scopes over (or ough to scope over) all Hindi-Urdu dialects (including Dakhni, Awadhi, etc.) or just the Khariboli form. That needs to be resolved first before the dialects parts, but it's not high on my list of worries. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, isn't Hindi belt the article that covers all the Hindi "dialects"? At any rate, I can't recall ever seeing "Hindustani" used with any such broad meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Right but Hindi belt doesn't cover the Hindi-Urdu dialects, which would include Dakhni. And you're right, it isn't, but there was a lot of discussion about this on the talk, and see here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything relevant in the RM, but I guess I'll have to look at the other talk page discussions. At any rate, if you'd like to change the status quo and add any dialects to the infobox, feel free to do so, provided you've got sources that list them as dialects of Hindustani (rather than Hindi). – Uanfala (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at articles in this area (like Bihari languages or Central Zone (Hindi)) I see that they're in a horrible mess and it seems this is due edits from the last couple of months. Shortage of watchers, I guess. – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Languages

Hi Uanfala,

I'm unsure as to why you reverted the edit made by another user moving Awadhi Language page into Awadhi Dialect. The Governement of India states that Awadhi is in fact a dialect of Hindi, and as a Awadhi and Bhojpuri speaker I can tell you both are. Also, if you need help with the Bihari languages and Central Zone (Hindi) pages I'd be happy to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigNasty (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Content on wikipedia should be backed up by reliable sources, and native speaker intuitions aren't that (especially if, as happens in the case of both Awadhi and Bhojpuri, they radically differ across different speakers). Of course, if you know these languages, it means that you're in a very good position to make meaningful use of the available literature and to contribute to these articles. As for the government's position – well, I'm not aware of governments being in the business of authoring sociolinguistics papers, and any implied classifications that they use for census and other purposes, though of course relevant, can't be used by themselves unless they're filtered through secondary sources, or at the very least balanced against such sources.

If you'd like to change an article's long-standing title, the way to do it is via a requested move discussion. With Awadhi there is some chance you might be able to have it renamed. – Uanfala (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As a fairly new contributor what would you suggest doing in a situation such as this. Many people including myself strongly have been led to believe that these are dialects rather than sole languages, whether they be native speakers or have read it online. Regarding the topic of whether what the Census of India states, that is a reliable source on the matter of determining whether Bhojpuri, Awadhi etc should be classified as dialects opposed to languages, and they have the position to determine sociolinguistic papers as they know the circumstances. For instance, Indians who filled out the census noted which language they spoke, and the majority of these "Hindi Belt" citizens wrote Hindi opposed to writing these individual dialects such as Awadhi, Bhojpuri etc. BigNasty (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What I would suggest doing in a situation such as this? Reading the scholarly literature. Just read the literature. As for census data, language questions are generally one of the least straightforward ones, and in the case of most of Northern India they are notoriously unreliable. If you'd like to make meaningful use of census data, I suggest reading Khubchandani. – Uanfala (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed that you removed the Bihari languages group from the Central Zone (Hindi) page, and I searched the internet for a reliable source and found a case study focused upon a dialect features, which they then primarily write about the Hindi languages. I have re-inserted the Bihari languages, but if you think this is not a justifiable source please let me know here. BigNasty (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The book (pp. 16–17) lists Bhojpuri as a dialect of "Hindi (in the broad sense)". It doesn't assign it to any of the genetic/areal "zones", and in fact asserts that "Hindi" covers languages from several of these. Now, in order to include Bhojpuri in the list of languages at Central Zone (Hindi), you need a source that says that Bhojpuri is from the Central Zone. There might be such sources (if you want to look for them, Masica's 1991 "The Indo-Aryan languages" has a decent appendix on the various classifications and you might get pointers to relevant literature from there). But you're also bound to find sources that assign it to the Eastern zone (in fact, you already have two tertiary ones linked from the infobox of Bhojpuri language), so you'll have to find a way of representing all views. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The intention of the Central Zone page was to create a page to group all the Hindi languages together. I'm certain it's not as a geographic zone, as you will see on the talk page a user opted to have the page re-titled as Central Zone(Hindi) opposed to Hindi Languages.

Well, as it stands now, the article with its present title and its present content is about the Central Zone. The article about all the Hindi languages is another one – Hindi belt. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the term Bihari might be misleading as well. The Bhojpuri dialect is closer to Awadhi over Magahi, and that is why many consider it to be a dialect of Hindi as well. I think maybe a section should be created in the talk pages to clear this up, as most people making decisions over these matters are, one not speakers of the dialects and two, have been mislead by reading information that doesn't justify.BigNasty (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If I might contribute my 2 cents (2 paisa?) here: there's no point getting all wound up in discussions about whether something is a dialect or a language, it's a complete waste of time. These terms are largely influenced by history, politics, war, and accident. My favorite definition: "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." That's really all it is. Generally speaking, linguists do not recognize these distinctions. Everything is a dialect. The one the King speaks, is a language. (Wikipedia goes the other way, and calls everything a language, which is fine, as long as they are all called equally.) Are Galician, Asturian, Aragonese, and Leonese in Spain "just" dialects, but "Spanish" is a language? How did what used to be called "Castilian" become known as "Spanish"? In the normal way: they had a war, somebody won, and banned all the other languages, and declared Castilian "the language of Spain" and that was that. And this didn't stop in the 18th century, but was reinforced in the 20th by dictator Francisco Franco's language policy which declared Castilian the only official language of Spain. Speak Catalan or Basque? Too bad, you lose; you're just a dialect now. Try winning the war next time. So what used to be the patois of Castile, is now the "language" of Spain. And of South America. And a few bits of Africa. Might makes right makes language; that's all there is to it. It's a power term, not a linguistic term. Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. It's precisely because it's a power term that we need to be careful when naming articles. And it's also the reason we get so much POV-pushing on these matters. And things are only made worse by well-meaning laypeople who don't understand that these terms don't have substantial linguistic meaning and who come up with what they see as "scientific" criteria for deciding whether something should be called a language or a dialect. – Uanfala 09:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Enough

Uanfala, BrownHairedGirl, we're going to sit down and have a nice chat about this nonsense with Category: Wikipedians with no red-linked categories on their talk page. I know the RFC about whether or not you're "allowed" to have redlinks user categories and all that malarky is still raging on in full strength, but I've watched this category be created/deleted a ridiculous number of times and it's getting annoying. I don't care about the RFC, because as far as I can tell we three are the only ones who care about this stupid cat. So, just between us - can we come to some sort of compromise?

Uanfala, I know you like being idiosyncratic, but Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page exists and seems to be the one "acceptable" redlinked cat. Would you be okay with using that? Primefac (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: as discussed at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:Wikipedians_in_red-linked_categories, there seems for now to be agreement to keep Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page.

I have also discussed this at great length with Uanfala at Category_talk:Wikipedians_without_red-linked_categories_on_their_user_talkpage. There has be some point at which we stop saying "OK, keep just one more redlinked" usercat, or Special:WantedCategories will start to fillupn again. It wasn't that great a joke to start with, and now that most of the redlinked categs are gone, Category:Wikipedians with no red-linked categories on their talk page is being ironic about something which has passed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This category is one of the two instances where the meaning of the category is depended on its non-existence (the other instance is represented by Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page and there's strong consensus against recreating these two). Although I do wish BrownHairedGirl wouldn't create the page of each new incarnation of this category (thus forcing the category to be renamed), I'm ready to cease from tagging these category pages for deletion if this causes inconvenience, but I'm not willing to carry on with this discussion, as I don't see the point of reiterating on a smaller scale that RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: there were many more such categories whose meaning depended on being redlinked, but apart from the two above, they have all been dealt with one way or another.
It's time to draw the line on the "just one more redlink" approach, and since Uanfala is utterly unconcerned about the impact their "joke" has on those editors who are doing encyclopedic maintenance, there is little more to be said ... other than to note again that Uanfala is intentionally, repeatedly disrupting a maintenance task, in the full knowledge that they are doing so. That smacks heavily of WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal achievement board

Hi Uanfala, I'm responding to your comment regarding my "lack of experience" deleting Babel (magazine), which, clearly, shows no signs of importance whatsoever. Your edits count is valuable for community and I'm not denying that, but you don't have to take personally obvious issues. You don't have to remove my edits just because you think that you are "more experienced" than anybody else, and you want to show off. Secondly, "ping" functionality was created with the intend to use it, so I do. It's not up to you to decide when or who is allowed or should use it. If you don't like to be "pinged" it's your personal choice. I'm really surprised with your pompous comments and behaviour. Anyways, I added AfD so the community can decide. Good luck Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded patronising. An article about a magazine can show "no signs of importance" but that doesn't make it eligible for deletion as spam. As for the pings, I don't mind receiving them. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Chris Cottrell (American Basketball Coach)

Greetings. You recently declined a speedy deletion of this template, because you did not believe it to be a template that is an unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. Please can you explain, in detail, which established policy you feel this template represents correctly? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A template doesn't need to somehow represent policy in order to exist. Most templates don't, at least not in any conceivable direct way. But that's the wrong question. A template is eligible for deletion per WP:T2 if it is a misrepresentation of policy. Being a misrepresentation of something is a very different condition from that of not being a representation of this something.

Anyway, the criterion's own documentation explains that in a better (and briefer) way than I had.

As for that particular "template", that's not a template at all. It's an article in the wrong namespace. WP:A7 might apply, but it's generally not a good idea to hurry tagging with A7 a bare minute after the article was started. Give the creator some chance to expand that. – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I understand that WP:T2 is widely misused to delete just anything that happens to have been created in the template namespace. But this makes pages ending up deleted for the wrong reasons, and users are left with talk page notices which effectively accuse them (falsely) of policy misrepresentation, and this leaves newbies with the impression of wikipedia as an irrational, Kafkaesque place. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a particularly inaccurate impression, now that I come to think of it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The largest integer that has an entry on Wikipedia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The largest integer that has an entry on Wikipedia. Since you had some involvement with the The largest integer that has an entry on Wikipedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying the ball

Really appreciate your saving graces for what I find to be a very useful tool template. // FrankB 02:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I find it a useful tool too. There were valid issues raised in the discussion, and I think the template should probably be redesigned with these in mind in order to be more generally useful. But then, TfD has a really strong deletionist bias... – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ottocento

Just wanted to give you a heads-up, being someone who has drafted disambiguation pages below a redirect during an ongoing WP:RFD discussion. If the discussion is not closed, then the {{Disambiguation}} template should probably not be transcluded until the discussion is closed. (In other words, using {{Tl|Disambiguation}} instead.) The reason I'm bringing this to your attention is because RussBot created Ottocento (disambiguation) since it thought Ottocento was a live disambiguation page due to the transclusion of {{Disambiguation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I hadn't thought of that. I've been using the template because it enabled the page to come up in the article alerts for Wikiproject Disambiguation. – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

PPPPPP

Just wanted to let you know, if you didn't know already, that this didn't work: see PPPPPP (disambiguation). As far as I know, the only way to prevent RussBot from creating the redirect is to encapsulate the {{Disambiguation}} in {{Tl}}, as I did here. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, too bad. I don't know what's the best way of handling this. If the dab template is "disarmed" we risk the closer of the discussion forgetting to enable it. On the other hand, if we leave it enabled and consensus is against disambiguation, then we'll end up having the unnecessary disambiguation page created by Russbot. It's about choosing the lesser evil and I think I'd rather have it on, as that will make the page appear in the article alerts for WP DAB, which could bring in useful feedback to the discussion. The only real risk with this is if someone from WP:DPL decides to start "fixing" the incoming links. But I don't think this is very likely event – even the more careless DPL-ers aren't probably that careless. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO, if the closer doesn't understand how to ensure that a live disambiguation page is tagged and properly appears in Category:All disambiguation pages, they shouldn't be closing discussions. That, and I'd say that in this specific case, this risk of human error is less problematic than a bot creating pages that may need to be deleted since after all, bots shouldn't be creating false positives. Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I just don't see the harm in the occasional stray (disambiguation) redirect (which should anyway be a rarity as my impression so far has been that most redirects that reach the stage of a draft dab usually get kept as dab pages). – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What a discussion. I guess a minor stylistic point about the choice of a single word in an article's lede might as well be one of the few things that formal discussions work well for. – Uanfala (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:PLACE

Look, community practice is going to assume that WP:INDICSCRIPTS applies to articles under WP:PLACE's scope, so in my opinion it would be best to have some mention of WP:INDICSCRIPT on WP:PLACE itself. I suppose there's no consensus on how the guidelines themselves interact, but if there's a way to have it mentioned on WP:PLACE there that suits you, I'd prefer that. Ultimately I don't mind whatever is done. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 02:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I was actually about to amend WP:PLACE and WP:INDICSCRIPTS each with pointers to the another, but then I realised that the only thing that could be added is simply a statement of the lack of consensus. I don't think this is very helpful, but I don't really care much – as long as the pointers are symmetric. Ideally, the interaction between the two guidelines (or whatever they are) should be the subject of another discussion, but I can't imagine anyone having the patience for any more of this silliness. – Uanfala (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Population, Theories of a sort name?

My impression (and I could be wrong) is that a sort name is a single unique version that would appear in a {{DEFAULTSORT}} template. bd2412 T 14:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had imagined it as a version that allows sorting (not necessarily in the default order). Population, theories of is precisely what you would expect to find in alphabetised subject headings. To be fair, I don't really the background behind {{R from sort name}}. What is its actual practical purpose? – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Bourbonnais (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bourbonnais (disambiguation), Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful disambiguation page!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

email

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

Discussion at Talk:Macron (diacritic)#Proposed merge with Macron below

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Macron (diacritic)#Proposed merge with Macron below. --Nevé–selbert 00:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Resource exchange

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

Thank You

Thank you for your help at the Resource Exchange

Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"The content of the external links..."

Pace upon a differing interpretation, but of the two external links, this one is a 404, and this is insufficiently independent. Please do not confuse notability with verifiability. Many thanks, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but any coverage in sources (independent or not) indicates that the subject is not a hoax on wikipedia and hence WP:G3 doesn't apply. A working version of the first link is archived here. – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Richard Bellon

WP:CSD isn't for notability.

True. But what part of the word "hoax" was confusing? There are two letters in common with "notability", but otherwise the two words are not the same. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the unusual observation. You might find an answer to your question in the thread immediately above. – Uanfala (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Languages you can help with

Hi Uanfala,

In a discussion at Elinruby's talk page you said, "I'll try to keep an eye on it if there are translations from languages I can be of help with." Pinging @Elinruby:.

What languages are those? If you let me know, I will send you an invitation to help for the language(s) you feel most comfortable with. By the way, have a look at Template:Babel; it allows you to place language-skill badges on your user page very easily. For an example of what this looks like, have a look at my user page. Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think I'll only be able to help with Bulgarian and Hindi (and maybe to a lesser extent Russian). I was planning to occasionally scan WP:CXT/PTR for relevant articles, I hope there's no deadline for these tasks? Feel free to notify me if anything comes up though. I'm aware of the Babel boxes, I haven't put any on my user page probably to some extent out of a sort of linguistic snobbery. – Uanfala 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

hmm it so happens we have a boatload of articles from Bulgarian about individual pieces of art. I have struggled through several that caught my eye but any help you can give with those is very welcome. My primary language is French, although I studied German for several years, and can read Spanish and Portuguese to some extent. The point is, none of these is much basis for guesses about Bulgarian. And yes, there is a deadline, but we are asking for an extension. I'll get you a list of Bulgarian articles in a second here. This particular list does not have much Hindi (if any) but long-term we may want to start some sort of monitoring or spot-check process, because I've been doing this a while and am a staunch inclusionist, and yet... I have seen some really horrifying things in the languages where I have any kind of a clue. I am not sure what you mean about linguistic snobbery, but those are both languages that we need. AFAIK we do not have a Hindi speaker working WP:PNT right now. But this list is a separate project: Bulgarian here If you get tired of Slavic art see what else is going on with this project here. Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a useful list, Elinruby. I'll tick off the articles there as I go along, I hope that's fine with the workflow? I see that there are two lists: complete and incomplete. Should I update both? – Uanfala 12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: can you answer this question, since you set up the by-language tracking? I think the incomplete list is just a subset of the complete one and he was able to get more articles with a better database query is what I think, @Uanfala:, but for now you have Bulgarian all to yourself. You may find that I have worked on some but that is simply an english edit. I do not speak Bulgarian. If you would like to work on the articles please do -- I was at one point trying to fix short ones as I went, and most of the art articles are short, but the *first* focus should be identifying any that have bad horrible translation mistakes and should be deleted. The ones that seem worth keeping and are easier to fix than starting from scratch are being struck. Elinruby (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Uanfala, to answer some of your questions, and those posed by Elinruby:

• Languages:
  • Hindi - we do have one volunteer, and there are not tons of articles on this list, so one is probably enough
  • Bulgarian - we'd love to have you assess some Bulgarian articles.

Procedures:

• Elinruby, you were right to ask about this. When it was just me, and very few translators, we didn't need too many procedures, although even then it was necessary to record what articles were sent to whom, otherwise I could drop the ball. But now a bit more formality is needed, to avoid duplicate effort. So, in response to your comments above, I've beefed up the #Send invitations section of the Procedures, although it's still not complete, but a lot better than it was.
• Normally, I wouldn't want translators directly editing the article lists at WP:CXT/PTR/BL because of the possibility of edit conflicts and other reasons, but for languages that have only one translator, I think we can ease up on the formality. So, since we have no one for Bulgarian so far, Uanfala if you want to help evaluate articles, I see no reason you can't go directly to the list and mark your assessments there. If you are more comfortable marking on your own Talk page, no problem; we can just paste a list of five at a time, or whatever size batch you would like.
• Two lists - I just wrote a section in the doc section of the page, at WP:CXT/PTR/BL#Articles in two lists in order to address your two-lists question. Thanks for asking it, because I needed to address this.
• Simplified procedure - If that procedure looks too daunting, we can just paste a list of articles for you on your talk page, so let us know which you prefer. The reason it's complicated, it that it's all new, and this is evolving fast. It will be simpler, once the double-lists are merged, and the struck items at CXT/PTR are all marked. Then you'll have only one list to look at, and no cross-checking anything; you can just pick any items that are free on the solitary list.
• Assessing vs. fixing - This project for X2 evaluation is about assessing articles that were likely machine translated, to see if they are suitable for the encyclopedia. The main focus is evaluation, and there are so many articles still needing evaluation. That said, improving an article so it can be kept, instead of deleted, is great, too. It just depends what you enjoy, after all we're all volunteers here. Ideally, if I had my druthers, I'd have everyone evaluate first, so that all 3,602 articles had a Pass/Fail indicator so we knew where we stood, and then go back and edit everything to fix them up. But in RL, it doesn't work that way, and if you want to assess a few, fix a few, and go back and forth, it's entirely up to you. We appreciate your efforts!

How would you like to proceed? We can paste a list of articles onto your talk page, and you can assess and mark them here, or you could work directly on the By language page, following the procedure above. Let us know your preference. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

How about I just send you the standard invitation; that might be easiest, as it has the basic information and a list of five articles you can look at, to see if you are interested in doing this. Watch for it in a separate section below. Add @Elinruby: Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. See below. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply, Mathglot. The invitation below was useful as well, as it answered some questions I was about to ask. I think it would be much more straightforward if I recorded my progress straight into WP:CXT/PTR/BL#bg. This is still alright, I hope? Cheers! – Uanfala 09:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. Please put {{pass}} or {{fail}} indicators at the end of the line item at WP:CXT/PTR/BL#bg articles in the second of the two lists, the one headed bg complete list of articles. (You'll see each of those lines marked 'invited: Uanfala'; you can append the marker after that.) When finished looking at a group of articles, or taking a pause from working on them, please summarize the results under sub-section "bg replies and results"—just a brief, one-liner bullet item is fine: "* <date-time> Uanfala reported <number> results" is sufficient (see examples at ar, fa, hu, zh) and ping one of us from your talk page to let us know, so we can propagate the results onward.

And thanks so much for your help. Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, I've done six now, will get around to making my way through the rest of the list next week. – Uanfala 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Grabbed those six, thanks! Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Duecento, ducento and dugento

These are spelling variants of the same word ("two hundred"). Treccani actually gives them as examples of allophones. According to this site there is also duegento, popular in Tuscany, which I had never heard/seen before. Just in case you're interested. —Srnec (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation, I see that this can be a properly spelt word. I'm just wondering though, whether this wouldn't be pushing the limits of WP:RFOREIGN. Duecento is of course needed as this can be found in English sources discussing Italian art/culture of the period. But if Dugento is only a dialectal variant then I can't imagine an English-language source ever using this term for anything to do with the 13th century. – Uanfala 00:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think duecento, ducento and dugento are all found in English sources enough to warrant redirects (until an article on 13th-century Italian art/culture should appear). I have never seen duegento and would not create a redirect for that. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec: That is a very nonstandard definition of "allophone" if it includes those three. But then, they recognized that fact themselves, by saying, "If we could extend the meaning of allophones to include lexemes which differ in a single phoneme..."; that is to say, if the toaster were thin and flat and horizontal and had no slots and the elements were enclosed, it'd be an iron. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Language orthographies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Languages_written_in_Latin_script#Misnamed_or_miscategorized 77.180.211.195 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Latin-script Unicode blocks

Could you create Category:Latin-script Unicode blocks inside Category:Latin script, parallel to Category:Latin-script calligraphy, Category:Latin-script diacritics, Category:Latin-script keyboard layouts‎, Category:Latin-script letters, Category:Latin-script multigraphs, Category:Latin-script representations, Category:Latin-script typefaces‎ ? And hopefully soon Category:Latin-script orthographies. 77.180.211.195 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've created it now, feel free to change its category membership. Have you thought of registering an account? That way you can create category pages yourself and you will be able to use tools like Wikipedia:HotCat, which is really helpful in categorising pages. – Uanfala 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I populated it. No account, I have read Wikimedia stores data then for several months and hiddenly connects all your IP addresses. NSA, Facebook, Google, Wikimedia ... ever thought why they restrict HotCat? Yeah, to lure people into accounts. 77.180.211.195 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion

Hello, may i ask why you reverted my edit on the Quetta page? Its a known fact that the first settlers of Kot were Kasi Pashtuns. Akmal94 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit [1] inserted an out-of-context statement into the middle of a paragraph, disrupting the flow of the text and making the following sentences almost unintelligible. Also, being a "known fact" is fine, but for it to be included in the encyclopedia, it has to be supported by a source, see WP:V. – Uanfala 00:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from Bulgarian

Hello Uanfala,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Bulgarian to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Bulgarian article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Bulgarian , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Bulgarian. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Bulgarian National Olympiad in Linguistics
2. Clock Software
3. Cat among roosters
4. Ride of the Kings (Uprka)
5. Stolen Life (TV series)

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Bulgarian article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Adding: @Elinruby: Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Arkorful

What is the purpose of placing a template on an article that only says "This page lists people with the surname Arkorful. If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to the link" on a page that has no list of people at all? It does not even mention one. SpinningSpark 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Spinningspark, you're perfectly right that {{surname}} looks really odd at the bottom of an article that doesn't contain any lists. I guess I'm treating the template as a boilerplate text for any surname article and I've put it there more out of habit than out of some concern for the direct relevance of its text. There is on aspect in which this template still makes sense though: a surname article is likely to accumulate incoming links intended for specific people regardless of whether it contains a list of such people. At any rate, I realise that this is a slim benefit, so I won't object if you remove the template. – Uanfala 22:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

CSD Tag removal

You are requested to clarify this edit.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, thought it was obvious. WP:A7 only applies if the subject has no credible claim of significance. If you see a musician with a long discography who's singed on to a major regional record label, and the article has a bunch of interwiki links, then that's an indication that A7 is probably not applicable. Whether the artist is notable is another matter, that's not clear from the English article but if you follow the interwiki link to the Bulgarian one, you'll find quite enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I guess what might have tripped you up is the lousy text in the English article: but you know that rubbish content is a different thing from a rubbish topic. Of course, if you think the article should be deleted, you're welcome to take it to WP:AFD. – Uanfala 09:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't obvious!A long discography does not imply significance.And regrettably, your second argument makes little sense! In your sense, for somebody desiring to push any article on en.wiki past the CSD stage thefore-most step shall be to create articles in other wikis. Chances are their inclusion criterion is a lot less strict than ours and it survives.And it has got some inter-wiki links.Also, the sources in the Bulgarian article almost entirely fail WP:RS.I am unable to equate information posted in self-identified forums/blogs/fan-clubs etc. to be reliable! But nevertheless, the content in those posts give some scarce indication(s) of being notable.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CSD is really for the most obvious cases, and the bar there is much, much lower than notability. The sources in the Bulgarian article might be mostly rubbish tabloids (still that's not fansites/blogs), but that's almost the best it can get when it comes to celebrities like this. – Uanfala 11:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)