User talk:SUM1/Archive 3

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello SUM1,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Why does Arthur Balfour get to be a Conservative in his short description, but Henry Campbell-Bannerman, H. H. Asquith, and David Lloyd George don't get to be Liberals in theirs? DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: No reason. I wasn't enforcing anything with my edits, I was just updating the existing descriptions with years. Go ahead and change it. In fact, if I'd had written them all from the ground up, I would've chosen "British [party] politician and Prime Minister from [year] to [year]". But it's too late now for all the work. The current format seemed established in the more recent articles. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I had a quick look at a few more and Prince Arthur does seem to be the odd one out. I think your suggestion of "British [party] politician and Prime Minister from [year] to [year]" would be better, but in the circumstances I'll just align the scented popinjay with his peers

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stromal cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stroma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Unprotected

Hi,

I've acted on your request regarding Au5 since both the timescale and your request's details indicate there's a good chance that a new version would succeed. Best of luck editing, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions and infoboxes

Hi SUM1,

I see that you are adding a lot of short descriptions, which is valuable work. But I'd like you to be aware that a lot of infoboxes already generate short descriptions. If you add a {{short description}} template as well, then the article winds up with two short descriptions.

I don't know of any actual problem that that causes, but it doesn't seem good from a general software-hygiene standpoint. It's the kind of thing that tends to cause problems.

In articles with infoboxes, if the default short description is not to your liking, I recommend overriding it using the infobox's short_description parameter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Trovatore: I was already aware that {{Infobox settlement}} auto-generates short descriptions. I was following the method built into Galobtter's Shortdesc helper gadget, which provides an "Override" link when a template automatically generates a short description. I did not see that parameter on {{Infobox settlement}} (a small mention way down the page), and after looking I couldn't find an equivalent parameter on any other infobox or template that generates short descriptions. Additionally, I was following the practice of other people on for example London, New York City or Chicago. But I'll use this parameter on {{Infobox settlement}} in the future. Thanks for the notification. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That parameter of short_description is mainly used for infoboxes that wrap infobox settlement. I don't think there's any issue with having two descriptions on a page (indeed, a parameter noreplace was added to the SHORTDESC magic word to make the infobox short description overridable by another short description up on the page). Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have my CSS set so that it shows the short descriptions, and I find it pretty annoying to see two short descriptions on the same article. Maybe it was a mistake to have the infobox template generate the short descriptions in the first place, but as matters stand, putting a {{short description}} template does not actually "override" the short description; it gives the articles two short descriptions, at least as viewed by a web user who has settings to show the short description. This is surely not the desired outcome. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Statistical Significance

Your recent editing history at Statistical significance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No edit warring, just 2 reverts. Though I can see why you yourself would like to believe I was going to continue reverting afterwards and warrant this template, given our past experience. Just like back then, I continue to not really understand your agitation or "dismay" at the simple idea of someone changing your edits. But, I don't wish to barge through that drama again just to get a minor fix through. You can keep your short description. It's only one in thousands. Please read the help page on short descriptions. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing edit warring with the 3 revert rule. According to WP:EDITWAR, "an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Please LEARN the difference.

According to WP:BRD, if you were to make a bold edit, and I reverted it, the next step would be to discuss the issue and get consensus. I have explained this to you multiple times in the past. Yet, for some reason, I can't seem to get through to you. Rather than discuss on the talk page and wait for consensus, you immediately revert my edits again and left snide remark. If you had read WP:BRD, you would know that "restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block." Do you see why someone might be "dismayed" by your unwillingness to follow process? danielkueh (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is something personal but you reverting my edits without engaging in discussion as outlined in WP:BRD is getting really tiring. Anything you want to get off your chest? danielkueh (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm very confused. I've only reverted your edits twice in history that I can recall. It wasn't even a revert that allowed you to already remark "Sheesh." and "WP:BRD" in your edit summary – it was a grammatical fix of your version of the short description. Only after this did I technically revert your reversion of this fix. So technically you have two reverts, and I have one. But, like I said, I'm not going to get involved in this drama all over again over something minor. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't you play this childish game with me about being "confused" or debating whether this is just one or two reverts. A revert is a revert, regardless of your intentions. You clearly reverted my edits twice and you even have the audacity to cite 3rr. Just who do you think you're talking to? I have been editing Wikipedia for over fourteen years. And when it comes to WP:BRD, 99.9% of the editors here understand and follow this process (WP:BRD). Those who don't are usually trolls, vandals, or sock-puppets. Is that what you are? I suggest you think carefully about what it is you hope to accomplish by being disruptive, which again, is REALLY irritating. Seriously. Just STOP IT. OK!?!?!?!? Comprende?!?!?! danielkueh (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Civility. You are lucky I don't care for this issue as much as you seem to, which says something being the recipient of an edit war warning rather than the donor. But keep in mind that this could come back in the future if someone does take you to the noticeboard. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Okamoto syndrome

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Okamoto syndrome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Okamoto syndrome

The article Okamoto syndrome you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Okamoto syndrome for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Architect

You have just changed the short description

Overseeing the constructtion of a building is not the same thing as reviewing the construction of a building.

The first, "overseeing", is an ongoing process, while "reviewing" is something that can only happen when the process is complete, and suggests that the architect ha nothing to do with the business of construction.

You should change this back to the way it was.

Amandajm (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: I hardly remembered making that edit. It was passing cleanup work: I truncated the description slightly, fixed its grammar and worded it in line with the lead. If you disagree with the wording, you are free to go ahead and change it, but make sure you change it both in the lead and the short description. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response. Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The last comment in the Inadequate lead discussion

Just to share with you that, I think, this last comment is based on a misunderstanding. The guy seems to think that the title "Lead to short" is seen by the editors that need to be flagged by the template. I also thought so and I first opposed the proposal because of that. Later, I realized that it was seen internally only and it made me change my position.

However, I still think that the title that is used internally when we search templates is very important and that "Lead too short" is confusing for many. It may seem like an innocent title, but it makes the learning curve to understand what each template says steeper. It would help minimize the confusion if the title would match more directly the actual content of the template. It's important, because "short" is often not at all seen as the issue, even though the lead fails to cover key points. It was my very innocent experience. I was looking for a template that says "key points are missing" or something similar. When I saw "Lead too short", I discarded the template, because it was not the issue. I even thought "short is good." Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello SUM1. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 12:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CDK13-related disorder

The article CDK13-related disorder you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CDK13-related disorder for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Desktop improvements prototype

Hello, SUM1!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Talk:Okamoto syndrome/GA1

SUM1, it has been over two weeks since you were pinged from this review about issues that need addressing. Do you plan to return to this nomination to work on the issues raised, or would you rather that the review be closed? Please let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SUM1, you received a response about two weeks ago with advice on how to handle the article lede issues. Please let us hear back from you soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy

I mentioned you in my arbcom evidence here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Picture of clubbed thumb

Thank you for adding the picture that I took File:Brachydaktylie_Typ_D_einseitig.jpg into Brachydactyly type D. Since that was done by you on August 17th last year I was surprised that is was reversed recently with the argument "No reason given for removal". I think that that picture is better, but maybe I'm not neutral here. Schrauber5 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Similar username alert

Hey there, just wanted to check in and see if you know anything about this user: Saum1. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Okamoto syndrome

The article Okamoto syndrome you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Okamoto syndrome for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello SUM1,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello SUM1,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Efkan Ala, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ankara bombing and Gaziantep bombing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

I felt very good after reading your user profile. Do you take any article expansion help requests? I have identified few information gap also initiate and work on some drafts including quite a few relating women's rights issues.

For example I have noted some info gap area @ Talk:Encyclopedia#Any takers ?, I am looking for help in arranging geographic list in serial manner @ Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast to build a map.

Then I have also initiated article Draft:Irrational beliefs

Please do help expand the topics if you feel interested in.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghan flag change

FYI, I have posted some clear objections to your change of Afghan flags at Template:Country data Afghanistan, as it's causing a high level of impact to existing articles about Afghanistan pre-2021, by showing an incorrect flag for all of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Jon-Erik Hexum

Why is there a notation of date of birth and death in this man's short description? I removed it and you put it back. There are countless celebrities who have passed away listed in Wikipedia, but their short descriptions do NOT include their DOB and DOD. Is this a "thing" of yours or have practically all dead celebrity short descriptions in Wikipedia been written incorrectly? Jmr012 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jmr012 see Wikipedia:HOWTOSD. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Jon-Erik Hexum

Okay. I read the short description article. I was wrong. I freely admit that there is much that I do not understand about Wikipedia. I am simply glad to be able to assist with small edits. Well, as best I can. Jmr012 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

Please respect WP:ONUS. When multiple editors challenge a new addition to an article - and both explain why on the talk page - it is both discourteous (and a violation of project policies) to immediate restore the content without gaining consensus for it. Neutrality^talk 23:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Multiple editors have also added it to the article before me, so this issue does not have as much consensus as you purport. Either way, I've made some additions that better reflect why it's not an insignificant view (more than one US official agency has concluded it). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Beja language short description

I was wondering about your reason for changing the short description for Beja language. It is the only language identified as a member of the North Cushitic branch (aside from hypothesised dead languages, none of which are accepted by more than a single scholar); meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Cushitic languages are spoken in Northeast Africa. What prompted the edit? Pathawi (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: I added further disambiguating information standard on language articles (its location) and removed redundant information (a sole-member parent) to keep it concise. I used "Northeast Africa" because it was the shortest accurate descriptor. Most Cushitic languages are better described as being spoken in the Horn of Africa or their native country or region, which wasn't possible for this language, because it is spoken across multiple countries and not only in the Horn of Africa. "Sudan, Eritrea and Egypt" is longer but also acceptable. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions are... short

Thanks for your work adding short descriptions. I recently undid two of your good faith edits (here and here) because of excess length; they were fine the way they were before. Please be aware of the recommendations at Wikipedia:Short description, which mentions "no more than about 40 characters" in the boxed material at the top of the page, as well as twice more in the body of the page. Thanks again for your help with these, and keep the recommendation in mind if you work on more of these. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I was part of the discussions about this length recommendation in 2020, and a lot of arguments were brought up by various sides, some about visibility on mobile etc., but it turns out that all text of the short descriptions are visible on mobile. The recommendation has always said that the length can be exceeded if need be (mine were only 52 and 48 characters, which I've never seen disputed), and innumerable short descriptions currently exist without dispute, including on featured articles, that go well in excess of this recommendation (many of which I myself have shortened down), which is not a style policy or even a guideline but a help page. I also strongly object to short descriptions with "former" where years can be used, as they do nothing to disambiguate between other similar articles from different years, not to mention the complete lack of location information in the former short description. That's why the previous version was not "fine" and could've been improved, and if you don't mind, I shall do so again to a length more to your liking. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Slang/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Slang/doc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please visit the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 118.96.88.115 (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Danish IPA

Please follow the conventions of Help:IPA/Danish. Otherwise there's no point in linking to it. Nardog (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: I didn't link to it. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did. But you changed transcriptions in ways that do not conform to the linked key, which defeats the whole point of having IPA keys, which is to maintain uniformity across articles and to explain the value of each symbol (see MOS:PRON#Other languages). Nardog (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: I assumed you were referring to the rendering of devoiced stops as voiced stops with devoiced diacritics. I did this because first of all, they represent virtually the same sound, but it's clearer when writing d̥ (which is in fact explained on Help:IPA/Danish) that a d has been written in the word rather than a t, for example, but secondly and more importantly, when sung in performances, where they are carefully enunciated, they often are voiced non-negligibly more so than the corresponding voiceless stops, and the job of the transcription on each anthem is to represent it as sung, not simply as it appears in the dictionary or in common speech. If you look at Help:IPA/Russian for example, or many other pages, like Help:IPA/Arabic (where this is explicitly stated) or languages that don't even have IPA help guides, it is clearly indicated that the editor can use a number of different options depending on how narrowly they want to transcribe. No help key can be robotically followed for every transcription of every word in the language; it simply doesn't have the information for that many use cases. Many of the help keys even point the user to the corresponding phonology articles, where allophones and exceptions can be listed that would be missed if one strictly stuck to the Help page.

However, instead of just reverting the stops, you reverted a bunch of actual corrections to the IPA, like med as mɛð instead of með, so I have to revert your fix. If you insist on exactly matching a Help page key, don't reintroduce errors into the IPA. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

it is clearly indicated that the editor can use a number of different options depending on how narrowly they want to transcribe This couldn't be further from the case. As MOS:PRON#Other languages says, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. ... Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers. As the section of the key I linked to in the summary and Danish phonology#Vowels make clear, we use ⟨e⟩ instead of ⟨ɛ⟩ because reliable sources say the sound is closer to the close-mid front unrounded vowel, which is represented as ⟨e⟩ by the standard IPA. These were decided after lengthy discussions on the talk pages of the key and the phonology article. They aren't "errors", just differences in conventions between external sources and ours. Different sources use different conventions, because there is no super-phonemic system somewhere in the sky, consisting of universal sounds in one-to-one relationship with IPA symbols. Rather, the IPA (or any other symbol system) offers us a battery of rather vaguely defined symbols on which we can draw in order to refer to human speech sounds in the real world, or to abstractions from them.

Many of the help keys even point the user to the corresponding phonology articles, where allophones and exceptions can be listed that would be missed if one strictly stuck to the Help page. That's the whole point of having separate keys and articles! That's why the Danish key says See Danish phonology for a more thorough look at the sounds of the language. The keys exist to ensure the same symbol in transcriptions of the same language refers to the same sound within this encyclopedia, which will never be 100% accurate because every language is in constant change and variation. They point to the articles precisely to shed light on the details and variation the keys do not cover. Nardog (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: It is the case. It's literally stated on Help:IPA/Arabic, so it is part of the 'conventions' of that key, and many others.

Only one source is cited for that ⟨e⟩ sound. Most, as you can see, transcribe it as ⟨ɛ⟩. Regardless, it's clearly an ⟨ɛ⟩, if you listen to this performance, for example, "det", two words prior, is clearly not the same vowel as med or brede, whereas in the inaccurate transcription you reverted to, it is. If you're insistent on following this key which happens to have some inaccuracies, explain to me why Wiktionary lists the pronunciation as mɛð, both phonemically and phonetically, then consider making some fixes to the key. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: In fact, I now see it was you who changed it to ⟨e⟩, in April 2020. I see you have made a lot of contributions to maintaining IPA Help keys, but a unilateral and relatively recent change like that that you yourself made doesn't represent a consensus you can force others into following, unfortunately. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: For your information, I've opened a talk page discussion on it on Help_talk:IPA/Danish. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not transcribe the vowels traditionally written with ⟨ɛ⟩ and ⟨e⟩ with the same symbols. In our system, med is [með], whereas det is [te̝] (mind the raising diacritic). I dislike the fact that you're edit warring without understanding how Help:IPA/Danish works. You're supposed to open a discussion at Help:IPA/Danish (which you did), convince others to change the guide and then change the transcriptions - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages. Sol505000 (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000: There's no edit war. I'm pretty sure I only reverted Nardog once. We're having the discussions right now. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000: By the way, it seems like you used the same vowel in med and te. Maybe you meant to put [e̞] (with lowering diacritic) in med and [e̝] (with raising diacritic) in det? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for My Belarusy

I have nominated My Belarusy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

• Hello. Can you write this article in English and improve it and add more sections? The Russian Wikipedia is biased against Chechens and their struggle for freedom from Russia, articles are deleted. If this article were available in other Wikipedia sections and in other languages, it would be left in the Russian Wikipedia. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8 25let (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

IPA transcriptions

How do you transcribe? What method(s) and/or system(s) do you use? 66.130.250.26 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@66.130.250.26: Judging by your IP location and edit behaviour, I have to presume you're User:Учхљёная/User:Canadian Communist/etc., who did many of the IPA transcriptions of anthems. Those were by and large very helpful and inspired me to continue the effort. Regardless, one thing that can't be done is repeatedly colourising the table headings. As pretty as it might look, it goes against acceptable contrast ratios and the manual of style for articles. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you a linguist by profession and ASD like myself? 66.130.250.26 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@66.130.250.26: I'm not a linguist by profession, but I am ASD, like probably a good chunk of active editors here. To answer your first question, I use a combination of the articles that are available on the phonology or script, including the Wikipedia IPA Help pages (if they exist), and cross-check with many recordings of performances of the anthems. The Help pages only fill in so much and often stop being useful when it comes to singing or more detailed phonetics and allophony. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Kashmiri gets crazy when he sees the colourful formatting. 66.130.250.26 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

IPA and English translation

SUM1 Time and again, the consensus on this page was to omit English translations made by editors (as can be seen from talk archives and article history). There is already one translation, provided by an official source. While, strictly speaking, editors are not barred from translating certain parts of the contents, I find translating the whole lyrics way over the top. Worse still, it was factually wrong in several places that I would not care to enumerate right now (yes, I'm a native speaker). Was that, God forbid, a result of Google Translate?

Similar for IPA: while helpful for pronunciation of personal and place names, it is uncommon to have long stretches of IPA transliteration for entire texts such as this. Serbian orthography being highly phonemic, it is also redundant to have in the article. For the same reason, it is rather trivial to write the first approximation correctly (as you did), but your version had several errors and omissions in vowel length and accentuation (what, do you think there are no rising accents at all?). No such user (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@No such user: "No other article uses mile-long IPA" They do, when it comes to anthems, and in fact that's exactly why I considered it acceptable to add. I was continuing a practice, not starting it. If you're a native speaker and found mistakes, why not correct it, instead of going this combative route? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR - I'd abstain from adding such narrow transcriptions unless you are truly familiar with the language(s). Рашид Давлатов (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Рашид Давлатов: Usually I'm sufficiently familiar. The objections that have been brought up have been to a small minority of my transcriptions, and quite often I've brought transcriptions to a more correct state, such as the original Sri Lankan Sinhalese transcription not realising that "a" can stand for [a] or [ə]. If improvements go unnoticed and only mistakes are highlighted, that's out of my hands. People are welcome to correct them regardless. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(Copied No such user's message from Talk:Bože pravde.) Would recommend heeding their message. And you've made some mistakes and questionable changes in your IPA transcriptions; for instance, in State Anthem of Karakalpakstan you used [ɯ] for и which is supposed to be a front vowel, and despite no sources state such. If some of those edits were inspired by Учхљёная/Diabedia, why bother reinstating them? They are blocked indefinitely anyway; you might as well start reporting them. 66.130.250.26 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@66.130.250.26: Why have you reverted uncontroversial edits like linking to International Phonetic Alphabet in the table heading and reverting the information that the infobox audios are renditions prepared by the U.S. Navy Band, not always identical in score to the official renditions by a native band/orchestra? You tag WP:BABY a lot in your edit summaries, but you seem to be falling foul to it yourself. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll apologise for that. You seem to be an avid language-learner yourself, eh? 😉 66.130.250.26 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)