User talk:Uanfala/Archive 11

• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Archive 11
• 12

Project

Re: the Arcana disambig page: Please refrain from using the word "project" when referring to a band or album. Do you know where you got that usage? I would like to know. Use "band" for band and "album" for album. Keep it simple. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this was the text from the earlier version of the dab page: I guess I should have paid more attention and tried to incorporate the intermediate changes. – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I do not understand, how is WWI (disambiguation) not eligible for speedy deletion? The disambiguation page ends in "(disambiguation)" and only lists one other extant article.

WP:G14 states that "Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page". But okay, I will just nominate the article in WP:PROD.

Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's got two links: to World War I and to Woodie Woodie Airport. The link to the primary topic counts: that's why a page whose title ends in (disambiguation) will be eligible for WP:G14 if it's got one link, in contrast to other dab pages, where the threshold for the number of links is zero. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sarazi

Hey,

If Sarazi is a language, then it should hopefully have a language code. sira1263 should be it. The dialects listed for a language are often wrong. Really, we shouldn't link to dialect codes at Glottolog. My fault, that. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Glottolog has a "language" called Sirajic, with two "dialects": Rambani and Siraji of Doda. As far as I can remember, Sirajic here is an invention of Glottolog, and the two varieties of Siraji and Rambani, though undoubtedly related, aren't otherwise grouped together. We don't have an article about Rambani (though I've been meaning to create a stub about it), and Sarazi language is about the "Siraji of Doda", without Rambani falling under its scope. The Glottolog entity that matches the scope of the article is "Siraji of Doda", not "Sirajic". – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually I ignore the dialect stuff because they're a mirror of MultiTree and so not RS. But it appears in this case that Glottolog did intentionally group these together as one language, which means in their judgement they are mutually intelligible. Anyway, continued below. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol

Two's company, three's a crowd, four's a WikiProject. Sign up if you see fit...

Certes and I crossed paths in 2018, and we ran a campaign on mononymic tsxonomists. We fixed around 1,500 links. It took a fortnight (slow work; a lot of it wasn't easy; I was given the Wikispecies equivalent of WP:AP, because I was being a nuisance). IDK the circumstances, but it looks to me as if Certes and GoingBatty more recently discovered that they were both attacking the same difficult-to-find roll-your-eyes problems. So, I had this Idea for a centralised collaboration, explicitly disconnected from foolishly argued and closed WP:RM/WP:PTOPIC discussions (I could cite at least three major examples without drawing breath). Someone has to pick up the pieces; a WP:MR might be a waste of breath; getting information right is all that matters.

Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Narky Blert, I think this project is a great idea! I don't think I'll have the time to get involved just now, but I've occasionally tried fixing links to dubious primary topics in the past, and I'll probably do so again in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation page sections

Hello. What do you recommend as a title for a disambiguation page section that lists both individual people with the name, and articles about an ethnic group? WP:LONGDAB suggests "People". Or do you think those things should not be in the same section? "People and ethnic groups"? Interested in your opinion, and hope all's well with you, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: The only reason that I can see why someone might want to put individuals and ethnic groups into a single section, is the existence of the two meanings of people: 1) the plural of person; 2) a singular noun meaning 'ethnic group'. I don't think the grouping should entirely hang on the ambiguity of a word, especially when the two categories don't conceptually fit together. Individual persons can be grouped with, say, individual animals, or with fictional individuals; ethnic groups can, in principle, be grouped with other collections of people, like nations, companies or organisations.
Still, contexts may vary and if somewhere it's deemed necessary to group these together (say, all the individuals happen to be prominently associated with the ethnic group/s), then the section title should be explicit about what is included. "People and peoples" would be most succinct, but that's confusing, so I'd avoid the word "people" altogether and go for something like "Persons and ethnic groups". And as for WP:LONGDAB this is one editor's essay (it has some good advice, but it's still just an essay); still, it says ethnic groups should be listed separately from individuals, which I take to mean they should go in separate sections. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. (What's less helpful, I think, is your edit to WP:LONGDAB: as you know, it was labelled as an explanatory supplement until you reclassified yesterday as an essay. The difference is subtle and arguing about it would probably generate more heat than light, and annoy editors more than any utility that might be gained by changing the status quo. I've used WP:BRD but I'd urge you not to further lift the lid on that can of worms, but of course you have the right to do so and you could discuss it on that page's Talk page if you wish). Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to insist here. But supplements, whether rightly or not, are commonly regarded as having more weight than essays, and this implies some sort of explicit consensus beyond one editor's self-certification. You'd need consensus for having it, not for removing it, similar to what you'd do with unsourced text in mainspace: that can be removed by default regardless of how long it had managed to survive, and it's keeping it that would require explicit consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sirazi

Hi. 'Sirazi of Doda' is a MultiTree classification, not Glottolog, and MultiTree is not a RS. I rv'd that change.

As for Poguli, its ISO name is now Khah. If that's wrong, we should still say why readers are being directed there from that name, and someone will need to submit a change request to ISO. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Poguli now has an article of its own. The name "Siraji of Doda", if I'm not mistaken, goes back to Grierson, and it was coined to distinguish this Siraji (or Sarazi) from the two other dialects with the same name spoken in Himachal. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that when I went to recreate it and then to restore the ISO code. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That may be, but according to Glottolog, sira1263 is the language, and all the refs on Glottolog apply to this variety, so you're rating your judgement as more reliable than Glottolog's. Unless you'd prefer to create a new Sirazi *language* article, and move this to the Sirazi of Doda dialect of the Sirazi language? — kwami (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Glottolog's "Sirajic" is likely a spurious creation. I don't think there are any sources that lump Sarazi and Rambani together like that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I see now you've created an Rambani language article. That makes a difference.

What we have in Glottolog is that there is a language "Siraji" (Harald changes Arabo-Persian -i to English -ic, which is weird but unimportant) with the sources provided. One of those sources is Kaul (2006). The code sira1263 also covers the language in Parihar & Dwivedi (2019) A Grammar of Sarazi, and, according to the evaluation of Glottolog, that of Bhat (2012) A Morphological Study Of Siraji: Language spoken in Doda District of Jammu and Kashmir. Glottolog evaluated these along with Grierson 1919 and determined that Siraji of Dodi and Rambani were a single language, [sira1263]. That's presumably a judgement of mutual intelligibility.

So you're judging that Glottolog's judgement is wrong. It may be, but have you concluded from Kaul that the languages are not mutually intelligible, or have you just not seen a demonstration that they are mutually intelligible? — kwami (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, we need to link these articles from the family articles. We can add, say, Rambani to Western Pahari per Kaul and to Lahnda per Glottolog, or as unclassified within Indic -- whatever you think the sources best support, but people should be able to find the languages of a family from the article on that family. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea if the languages are mutually intelligible – no studies that I know of have been performed on that. But that's beside the point. Whatever the exact relationship between those two varieties, they're always treated as separate entities (whether languages or dialects), and apart from Glottolog, the label Siraji will always refer to only one of them. I don't know if it helps clarify things here, but Sarazi, Siraji and Siraji of Doda are exact synonyms; Glottolog's original step is to group Sarazi and Rambani together and then call this new thing Sarazi. Any instance of Sarazi you may see in the literature will refer to "Sarazi", not to "Sarazi + Rambani".
The sources listed by Glottolog are about Sarazi, there hasn't been anything published on Rambani since the LSI, Kaul even conjectures the variety may have gone extinct. Rambani doesn't figure in Parihar and Dwivedi's list of Sarazi dialects, and Kaul also treats the two separately; I haven't seen Bhat's paper.
The two varieties are clearly intermediate between Kashmiri and Western Pahari; most of the recent literature appears to place them with the latter, but that's not very rigorous. Kaul, for example, has very detailed enumerations of shared features with Pahari, but he makes no effort in distinguishing shared innovations from shared retentions or likely borrowings. Feel free to mention them in both language group articles, but just not in Lahnda – Glottolog's placement of "Sirajic" under Lahnda is bogus. – Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that makes things much clearer. What of the connection of Poguli to Khah? Is that just nationalism, or do you think there's anything to it? (E.g. Dhar Nazir Ahmed (2013) 'A note on Khah morphology', Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics, U Kashmir, p 111-124.) — kwami (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My reason for linking to the Khasha was precisely to show that it's a grandiose claim. Why else call it 'Khah'? Do any RS's call it Khah, or was ISO duped?

If 'Khah' is not used by RS's, we probably shouldn't have it in the lead.

Also, if 'Panchali' is not the same thing, please revert me. I just noticed that most of the sources used for the ISO request were for 'Panchali'. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And there's also this by the same person that asked for the new ISO code. If I remember correctly, the claim is that "Khah" has currency among the speakers themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if a popular local name might have been missed in previous studies. It's not very far-fetched either, as there are well-attested names in the region that look similar – there's Khashali to east, and Khāṣi to the west. Though if it's just the promoters of the language that are using the term, and no-one else has mentioned it yet, then maybe you're right and we should not use it in the lead. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like he's claiming Sirazi and Rambani as dialects, and that's implicit in the ISO acceptance. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Minas

Are you a Tolkien fan?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Move history tool

Hi, remember this discussion at VPT? Well I just made that tool I wanted: User:Nardog/MoveHistory. It's been my most popular script so far, which was unexpected. It should probably be a PHP tool hosted on Toolforge rather than a client-side script, but I don't quite know how to do that yet. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Nardog (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, this is such a handy tool. Good job! – Uanfala (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent behavior

Hello, Do you have an RS that states that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th Century? NightWolf¹²²³ 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's about this, right? I'm really not sure what to make of your question. Are you suggesting that there is any legitimate doubt that the Book of Mormon was not composed in the 19th century but actually dates back to four millennia ago? If so, then the whole article would need to be rewritten, with RS showing that the text was indeed created between 2200 BC to AD 421. Articles about sacred texts – and I'm not sure this really needs pointing out – are not written from the perspective of the religious communities for whom these texts are sacred, but have to follow the same standards as everything else on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I have decided, due to WP:NOTTRUTH, I will be leaving it here. I will poke around, but I would rather it be slightly incorrect rather than be blocked for edit warring. Thank you for your comments.

Sincerely, NightWolf¹²²³ 01:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't have very strong objections to that field getting removed entirely, although the information is probably of relevance to many readers and there's the expectation that it should be there (slightly under two thirds of the articles that use the infobox have that filled in). – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't find an RS for either side. What I'm thinking is put my version but then insert a note down at the bottom explaining the controversy at the bottom of the page. Let me know what you think. NightWolf¹²²³ 03:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real controversy to speak of: this is one of those frequent situations where members of one community have a certain view, while everybody else share another. We can't present the insiders' viewpoint as though it was objective. You can see how this is done in other articles: Book of Genesis doesn't claim the text was actually written in the second millennium BC, nor does Rigveda dedicate any space to the idea that it has existed for eternity. The only possible compromise I see here is to just remove that piece of information from the infobox – readers will still be easily able to draw their conclusions from the article's lead. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Please accept this as an apology. NightWolf1223 03:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry if I came across as abrupt. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Saraiki

Man i want to talk to you about article Saraiki Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqmerani (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free, Siddiqmerani, though Talk:Saraiki language might be a better place. I don't know if this is relevant, but the edit that emphasised the dialect viewpoint has already been reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you deleting all the dialects of Punjabi? Punjab means land of 5 rivers and Punjabi means language of 5 rivers. Saraiki/Multani is spoken on the land of Punjab so it is part of Punjabi language family. Multani is a sweet language but it is part of Punjabi language family.

You Multanis are free to develop your language but do not mess with other dialects or I might have to take action against you for trying to hide Punjabi dialects. Wikisuperman07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuperman007 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikisuperman007, the relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: we follow what reliable, linguistically-informed, sources do. We don't adopt the Punjabi (ethnonationalist) viewpoint any more than we adopt the Saraiki one – your edits insisting that Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi get reverted, but so do the edits of those who present it as more ancient than Punjabi or those who claim it's spoken by as many as 50 million people. Much of the treatment of this topic was agreed after long discussions in 2016–2017: you can browse the archives of Talk:Saraiki language. As for the removal of the section on dialects, the reasons are explained at Talk:Punjabi language#Dialects section. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fix ping to Wikisuperman007. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

reversion of my edits on Template:Afroasiatic languages

The reason I greatly expanded {{Afroasiatic languages}} is so that one can navigate articles of different Afroasiatic languages using just one template. The idea is that the templates {{Berber languages}}, {{Biu–Mandara languages}}, {{Cushitic languages}}, {{East Chadic languages}}, {{Masa languages}}, {{Omotic languages}}, {{Semitic languages}} and {{West Chadic languages}} would be gradually merged into {{Afroasiatic languages}} and replaced with different selected parameters on different articles. Why are other big templates allowed, like {{Austronesian languages}} and {{COVID-19 pandemic}} but not this one? -- PK2 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The point of a navbox is to provide easy navigation to related articles: a readers who's at the page about one language will have a glance at the navbox, see where the current article is located (that's easy because of the bolding), and navigate to the languages that are most closely related. That becomes much more difficult when the navbox presents you with the titles of several collapsed sections, and the reader will have to know where exactly the language stands in the classification scheme before being able to locate the languages closest to it. I don't know if having a one-top way of navigating to all languages in a massive group like Afroasiatic is desirable, but if it is, then that's probably better done not at the bottom of each and every Afroasiatic article but in a separate list.
And there's the consideration of size: a navbox with 600 entries is comparable in text length and in html size to a decently developed article, and it's bigger than most existing articles (and with such big templates around, navboxes will probably never get enabled in mobile view). {{Austronesian languages}} is a monstrosity, and I would fully support splitting it into smaller templates. You can see Template talk:Indo-Iranian languages#Split template for a discussion of a similar case. You mention the idea of having a master template with different selected parameters in each article. I'm not sure I can picture that, would you be able to elaborate? And one more thing: when making a large-scale change, it's usually better to not do it boldly, but propose it first and go ahead only if there's support – that way you won't risk spending time on something that eventually gets reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example of a template using a selected parameter:

above, the 'Cattle' or 'R.' group in {{British Isles livestock}} is expanded while the other groups are collapsed. -- PK2 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This takes away one of the two main concerns I expressed above. The other one – size – remains, so I still don't believe the change would be an improvement. You can still propose it and see what others think: this is best done by making a proposal on the template's talk page and leaving notices on the talk pages of the templates that you believe should be superseded. If you'd like to draw a larger crowd, you can also post a notice on WT:LANG. If you'd prefer a formal discussion instead, then you can nominate the templates for merging, see WP:TFDHOW. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The main difference between {{Afroasiatic languages}} and {{Austronesian languages}} is that you can easily split the former while fully maintaining NPOV, while this is almost impossible to do so for the latter. Only Malayo-Polynesian (MP) and within MP, only Oceanic are generally accepted large units, apart from this, we have a lot of relatively compact subgroups of MP. The larger internal structure of MP remains debated (btw, I hope I can add to the "confusion" by publishing a paper this year presenting yet another subgrouping proposal). –Austronesier (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems that most of the Austronesian language articles, whether in observance of NPOV or not, don't use the big navbox but instead have one or another of the smaller templates. – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Then why isn't there a proposal yet to split templates {{Austroasiatic languages}} into multiple templates, even though that one is quite large as well, and only a third smaller than templates like {{Austronesian languages}}, like there was with {{Indo-Iranian languages}} three and a half years ago (see here)? -- PK2 (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Austroasiatic languages has 150 entries, which is just about manageable. There's a big difference between 150 entries and 500. Also, it was for most of its history a flat table, and the current format involving sublists was the result of a bold conversion in October. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from a dummy: can I directly embed a low-order template (like Template:Philippine languages) in a higher-order template (like Template:Austronesian languages), or does that require a third template that only contains the shared part of the code? This won't make Template:Austronesian languages less monstrous, but it can help to synchonize data. I would like to create templates for Celebic and South Sulawesi, two accepted and rather large/structured subgroups, but I want to see first if there's a way to avoid redundancies. –Austronesier (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You can directly plug the daughter template, like here, but this results in a duplicated header. Alternatively, there should be a way to select a specific portion of the daughter template's code to embed in the parent template using labelled section transclusion. There may be other ways I don't know of (I don't do navboxes much), so maybe worth asking at Template talk:Navbox? – Uanfala (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I'll experiment with labelled section transclusion. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Guenoa (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guenoa (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of PROD

• Your reversion of the prod placed on Vimlanand Saraswati asks if I checked the references on the page.
• The reply is yes, I checked all the ISBN links, none of which were found on Google Books. I also checked the programmable search engine we use on AfD.
• Your reversion and reply is pre-emptive. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, in that case my comment should have been less acerbic, so I apologise. But Google Books's coverage is not universal, and it's particularly thin on the ground in this topic area. (This particular book exists, btw, and is even available online.) Generally, when making decisions about notability on India-related humanities subjects, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the literature is offline, it's most likely to be in a language other than in English, and the little that exists in English may use a different transliteration of the name. – Uanfala (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, but I only spared 15 minutes to check a few diffs. Maybe this barnstar is an indication that the venue is backlogged and everyone who's had a dabble of it is routinely given a doze of carrots to entice them back? :) – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Palantir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palantir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

30em/xxem/|2/etc.

Hey, thanks for the interest in the columnizing template. You, I see, are a template guy, so maybe you can fix the documentation for that template. It's all automatic now. I'd trout you, but, really, the guy that didn't change the doc after that template change years ago deserves it. Orz... Happy editing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out here. I'm finding this a bit puzzling, so I've asked for clarification at Template talk:Reflist#Column width deprecated?. – Uanfala (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Subgrouping

Wanted to ask about your reversion of my edit on this one. I tend to think of maintenance templates as a strategy to draw the attention of a broader community of editors who may keep track of articles needing additional citations, for example. In my mind, this rationale justifies the addition of "obvious" templates to short articles, but I would be interested to hear your thinking on this. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In principle, yes, that's one of the intended uses of those templates. In practice, this only works for some of them: ones like {{hoax}} that indicate very serious issues and that are used on very few articles, or templates like {{orphan}}, where the problem is simple to fix and there's a system where editors systematically work through the backlog. There's nothing comparable with who {{refimprove}}: it's used on more than 350,000 articles, resolving it for each individual case takes a lot of work, and it's extremely uncommon for editors to dig into such a monstrously big list when looking for articles to improve. The only real purpose of this template is to signal to readers that they should take the article with a grain of salt. There's no need to make such a statement when the issue is otherwise obvious, and a big banner template is actually unhelpful if it takes up more space than the article itself. And for an article of a size like this, the more relevant issue is not that it needs more sources, but that it needs expansion. On an unrelated note, Subgrouping probably doesn't need to exist as an article in the first place: I think it should just be replaced with a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very helpful to hear, and I will take that into consideration in future edits. A quick Google search leads me to agree with you on the existence of the article - searching for subgrouping leads to a lot more information about the mathematical term, and the only linguistics link on the first page is this article. I would support its replacement with a dab page if that were proposed.

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, UserNumber. Sorry I haven't commented in the ANI thread. I don't feel like there's anything quite actionable there, though that user can be a bit of a pain to be dealing with. I'd agree with Austronesier that there might be some CIR at play, and the person may need to have aspects of wikipedia patiently explained to them. That may not be necessary – I don't think it's likely their current enthusiasm will carry them for much longer. But if they do go on, and repeat actions that have already been explained to them as being unhelpful, then some sort of sanction will be necessary (probably may be easier to go the route of WP:AE). – Uanfala (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, I just sent the notice out just in case you were unaware. UserNumber (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Punjab literal translation change

Hello, I noticed your change on literal translation of the article Punjab, Pakistan, please keep in mind that Punjab is made of two words, Punj (five) and aab (waters) in Persian. Therefore making it "Five Waters". Please read more about this before you make an uneducated change.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC5:175:FA00:3DB2:C195:2EBE:8314 (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 2400:ADC5:175:FA00:3DB2:C195:2EBE:8314 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Punjab's literal translation is "Five Waters" from Punj (five) aab (waters) please keep in mind befor you make a change. Punjab, Pakistan

The point of my removal was not to challenge the well known origin of the name. At the very least, this is explained at length in the first section of the article. My point was that this is the source of the name, not its contemporary meaning. When someone says they live in the province of Punjab, they don't normally then have an image in their head of being among five rivers. That's why passing off the etymology as a literal meaning is misleading. However, the etymology can be mentioned in the lead section of the article, but it's not significant enough to be included in the very first sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Special:MobileDiff/1028347010

Just to clarify, why I removed that portion is because there was ‘more details on this in subsequent lines’ as I stated in my edit summary. Since it was unsourced, I took this as an opportunity to be bold. I still feel that that introduction is pretty needless here. Anyways, cheers! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the text in the "Subgroups" section repeats the broad observations of the immediately preceding section: "Theories". You're right, that's unnecessary. It does give some examples though, and even though they can otherwise be gleaned from the subsequent big table, I think it's still helpful if they're noted in the text as well. – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Merya

Hi. I swapped Merya and Merya people as requested. I'm having an issue with Wikidata though; as evidenced by the error now seen at Merya people, the Wikidata entry for the Merya people is still linked to Merya. When I try to change it to Merya people in Wikidata, it won't let me, saying that Volga Finns is already connected to a Wikidata item. But Merya redirects there too, and that's apparently not a problem. Do you by any chance know how to solve this? Lennart97 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

New to wiki editing

The mistakes were made with the names and publication year of the book. Also, wasn't familiar with the wiki user interface.

Links:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B096Y6BSV7/ref=sr_1_11?dchild=1&keywords=tanvir+ratul&qid=1623876539&sr=8-11

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B096XVQ8GM/ref=sr_1_12?dchild=1&keywords=tanvir+ratul&qid=1623876584&sr=8-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastbench (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup, they're available on Amazon. Only there. Otherwise unnoticed. And "University Press Liverpool" reminds of "Made as Italy" on "branded" shoes sold in Indonesian markets :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of Mesha (month) was undone

Your revert of Mesha (month) was undone. Again you are using the same tactics in Vrishabha, the next month after Mesha. That is very evident is that you are vandalizing. Please refrain. Crashed greek (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're free to start an RM for the page you would like to move. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Fs interlinear

Template:Fs interlinear as special formatting for some languages, but Tibetan is not one of them. I think it should, considering that Tibetan is default shown as too small, and has a special template just for fixing that. I can't figure how how/where to add that though, and since you're the main editor behind Template:Fs interlinear and Module:Interlinear I thought you might know. (And for context, I set up the glosses on Modern Standard Tibetan grammar using the template.) --Eievie (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I've replied at Template talk:Fs interlinear. Incidentally, I'm soliciting suggestions about a new name for that template. – Uanfala (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Trout me, I guess

Regarding Special:Diff/1035666623, I have no clue what happened there. Thanks for fixing it for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

Why are you keep changing it to Indian when i just explained to you how he is Pakistani. Would you be Okay if Pakistan starts claiming Ashoka as Pakistani since he actually made Taxila its capital which is in Pakistan. I don’t understand why is it so hard for you to acknowledge the origins of where they’re from. Just like the history on Indian side would be considered Indian, History on Pakistani side would be considered Pakistani Insha22 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

False information and errors

Why did you remove Hindko as a modern day dialect of Prakrit when Hindko literally came from Prakrit? I literally added a source on the history of Hindko language and Hindkowans. Why are you making false errors and putting misinformation? You do know that Hindkowans are native people of kpk aka descendents of Gandhara. What’s bothering you so much about their history being put with their civilization? Insha22 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop Indian washing the history

I’m literally a Gandharan. Why are you Indian washing my history. I’m literally from Charsadda which is one of the capitals of Gandhara civilization. You are coming on all the Pakistani history pages to Indian wash our history. If i see it again, I’ll have to report you. Leave my history alone coming from a Gandharan itself. Insha22 (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI: I've requested semi-PP (manually, twinkle has a bug). –Austronesier (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My apology

I'm sorry; I did look at the {{annotated link}} documentation prior to employing the template, but misread it. Thanks for pointing out my error! JoergenB (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem: that happens. The system of rules and guidelines around dab pages is so convoluted by now that probably nobody knows it all :) – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision

Hi, I noticed that my edit in Gandhara was reverted. I restored former information since this was written since the beggining of the article and I realized that I removed it. I changed the same edits that were made by me a month ago. Maues768 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you weren't the original contributor of that bit. If I'm not mistaken, you've added the Iranica article, and that's a good source. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. I have seen just now that my edits provoked disputes after. I restored some information that was removed by me and changed my own edits, but it was undone by you. Maues768 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the "disputes" here all came from one very disruptive user, who as a result managed to get himself blocked. Your removal of that text was definitely the right call. Blog posts are not reliable sources, especially not for tricky questions like the relationship between certain ancient and modern-day languages. For that, we'd need a good source, for example, a paper published in a reputable linguistics journal. – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If you check the revision history carefully, you can see that I made an edit a month ago and I removed information regarding the derived Indo-Aryan languages surrounding Gandhara and that was staten since long time ago, I removed that without noticing. The source attached there before I removed that was written in Pashto. It's pretty obvious that languages like Hindko and Kohistani are native to this region before Pashtun tribes settled there, what else do you think, are Bengali, Marathi or Bihari derived from there. Regarding the revision history, I don't know why are you so concerned about this. I see that's been discussed in Gandhara talk page but let's discuss it here with @LearnIndology: and reach to a solution. Maues768 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Phonics

Hi. I appreciate your help with the Phonics article. However, I am puzzled by your removal of arabic as an example of an alphabetic language. I am not a linguist, however, the articles on Alphabet and Arabic both refer to the "arabic alphabet". I included the examples because I feel many English readers only think of the Roman alphabet. Can you please explain more about why Arabic does not belong? Thanks. John NH (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I kept Russian as an example of a language with a non-Latin writing system. As for Arabic, its writing system is an abjad rather than an alphabet, though that's in the narrower sense of 'alphabet'. In the broader sense of the word, it's not incorrect to say that Arabic is written using an alphabet. If you would like to reinstate that mention, I'll have no objections. – Uanfala (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy and the explanation, I certainly learned something. I will reinstate Arabic because there appears to be an entire industry devoted to teaching Arabic using phonics. I will also add a reference. Cheers, John NH (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Why have you opened a sockpuppet investigation about me when i'm just trying to help? 1IfYouSaySo (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. If you're unrelated to the banned editor, then you'll be easily cleared at SPI and you won't have any negative consequences. You remain innocent unless proven otherwise, so happy editing! – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For digging up data from the clickstream and presenting it in a convenient manner at pretty much every applicable RM. It's hard to express how much time and effort this has saved me (and I'm sure many other editors too). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. And I'm grateful to you and the few other RM regulars who have started taking that data into account, and to Certes, who was the first to bring it to the attention of everyone here. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:DABRED

Hi, i refer to your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mosolovo&oldid=prev&diff=1046182144). Maybe i'm missing something, but WP:DABRED says to include a red link in a disambiguation page only if it is linked from another page (that isn't a disambiguation page). I did only what was recommended in WP:G14. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Mosolovo was never a disambiguation page. It was created as an SIA (set index article). Different rules apply to SIAs. BD2412 T 06:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, my bad then. Thanks for pointing it out. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a dab page, but I believe that making a distinction between dabs and sias in this case isn't much helpful. Regardless of what we decide to call this page, all the links are for notable places, and their existence can in principle be easily checked by comparing with either the corresponding Russian-language page, or looking up on a maps service. The entries are therefore all appropriate even if they happen not to have any other incoming links (the DABRED rule quoted above is really only a proxy for notability and verifiability, and these are both satisfied directly). – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Woah!

Thanks so much for this! I have absolutely no idea what happened there – I tried to comment, had an EC, stopped, tried again with the same comment on a new edit. I can't see what can have caused that (caching somewhere???) but I wish I had checked ... you don't normally expect, though, to see that my addition is someone else's removal! So, many thanks again for putting it right so nicely and promptly. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not a problem, these things happen from time to time. I hope I've moved the comment to where it was intended to be, though that's worth double-checking. – Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello, your participation in a discussion regarding possible edits to the India article proposed by me at Talk:India would be appreciated. The discussion is under Suggested edit w.r.t. lead, please go through the boldfaced text for a quick summary of my arguments for the suggested change. Thanks. --Pankykh (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

How did you do that?

How did you get this data? VR _talk 00:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That's from the clickstream dataset, you can read about it at meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream. I'm not aware of any easy interface to that data yet. You'll have to go to https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/clickstream/, choose the month you're interested in and then download the respective enwiki file. When unarchived, it's around 1.5 GB in size, so can be a bit slow to handle. It's a tsv file: basically plain text. It's relatively easy to query from the command line, but it can also be opened in a plain text editor (like Notepad, presumably), or imported into a spreadsheet processor (like MS Excel). – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That worked, thanks! VR _talk 12:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Elli, VR, people have now developed WikiNav, which makes clickstream data a lot more accessible. – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You have just made my enormous text file searching skills useless! No, just kidding. This is great. Thanks! VR _talk 23:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Re:Human arts

Hi User:Uanfala, thanks for letting me know. Since you don't normally edit articles related to medicine, would you be able to inform me how you came across that redirect? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I remind myself of WP:AGF. As such, there is no need to answer my question. Happy editing, Anupam^Talk 03:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Rosa pendulina

If the sourcing in an article is insufficient, but all the information is consistent with what you've read about the topic, removing the information is probably not the best solution, don't you think? It might be argued that you are attempting to coerce editors into putting sources into articles. Perhaps a citation needed tag would be more appropriate? Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't removed any information or sources. I was just pointing out that the source didn't seem to support the statement it was cited for. I pinged you because you've added the source so you may know better. Was it an older version of the web page? Or is the relevant information still there, and it's only that I can't see it? Or maybe you originally meant to cite something else instead? – Uanfala (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you just moved it lower down, my bad. Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary ping

Hello, Uanfala. I saw your edit summary on WP:RFD and wanted to let you know, yes, that was an error. Apparently, I didn’t know how to use the template at first and copy-pasted the “QRNG” template instead, editing “QRNG” out. But, it looks like it found its way in there. :P I’ll have to figure out how to use a template next time… feel free to trout me. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that must have been laborious. It's probably easiest to nominate using Twinkle, but if you'd rather do it by hand, you can see how at Template:Rfd2 (the same information is also present in an html comment at the top of each daily log at RfD) – this is still much simpler than re-using the convoluted code that the template produces on substitution. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User Gotitbro

I'll respond here instead of Gotitbro's talk page as I don't want to stir up another argument there. I appreciate your comment. I can accept that some of the warnings could be bogus, but it's quite clear if you look closely that not all of them are bogus. And the two blocks certainly aren't bogus. But I'll leave this issue alone unless something new arises. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Samsung phones

Hi Uanfala, I noticed this edit to {{Samsung phones}}, removing the link to Samsung SGH-A167, citing in the edit summary "rm Samsung SGH-A167: article doesn't exist anymore". I'm thinking that this might be a mistake, so I have reinstated the previous version, as the article in question does still seem to exist.

If I made a mistake, or misunderstood, I apologize! I figured I'd drop you a note to make sure I'm not missing anything. SQL^{Query Me!} 12:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

At that point the article had been converted to a redirect (with a fair chance of getting deleted), but now it's been restored and sent to AfD. Yeah, better keep the link for now, in case the article survives. – Uanfala (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Alyssoides

Hello, Uanfala,

This may seem small but it is easiest for admins if you make requests like this using Twinkle. You just go to the page you want deleted and usurpted, select CSD from the drop down Twinkle menu and select G6 Move. There is a field where you put the name of the page you want to move over. Then, the admin can, with one click, delete the page and do the move. It's very quick and straightforward. Doing this just might cause your requests to be acted on more quickly. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's equivalent to using {{db-move}}, right? I should have thought of that, thanks for the suggestion! – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)