User talk:Uanfala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 30 January 2019 (→‎Maram language (Austro-Asiatic): Doing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Moving "Madi language"

I'm sorry I didn't contact you about this while it was happening - my direct involvement with this language has passed, but I still wanted to contact you and resolve this issue.

Currently, Madi language is a disambiguation page which links to the following three languages: Gira, Jamamadi, and Ma'di. The reason this is a problem for me is that "Jamamadí" is not a synonym for Madí, or even a dominating or prestige dialect of the same. The speaking population of the Jarawara and Banawa dialects combined outnumbers that of Jamamadí, and multiglossia is rare or nonexistent. The current situation is tantamount to labelling English as "American" (albeit on a much smaller scale, of course). The same goes for documentation - although the language is indeed obscure as a whole, nonetheless Jarawara is by far the best-documented, which skews perception much more than bare population does. For this reason the article discusses Jarawara almost exclusively, which is doubtless confusing in an article titled "Jamamadí".

Meanwhile, the two articles that compete with it for "Madi" both have useful titles which are not themselves "Madi". The Gira language does have an alternate name (obviously), and one that's apparently interchangeable - I don't know much about the language itself, but the precedent set by the article and its ISO identifier (grg) would imply this. In contrast to Madí, practically no documentation exists for this language and I find it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to have a problem using an alternate name. Meanwhile, Ma'di - which admittedly has five hundred times more speakers than both other languages combined, and good documentation - has a completely distinct name (hence the apostrophe, which has phonemic meaning here), one which again is not going to cause much of a problem for anyone motivated enough to search for it.

That's why, from my perspective, it would be both useful and harmless to have "Madi" direct simply to Jamamadi language, with of course a disambiguation warning linking to Gira and Ma'di. The current arrangement is based on a misconception and perpetuates it, while simultaneously being inconvenient for everybody. My solution might be inconvenient for somebody, maybe - and of course I'm not forgetting that this is all extremely esoteric - but, I think, less inconvenient overall and actually accurate.

Let me know what you think. Kielbasa1 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm... is your ultimate aim to rename Jamamadí language to Madi language? Wouldn't it be better in that case to have it at Madí language (with the acute accent), which is the form of the name you've used in the article? That way all the three languages will have distinct titles and Madi language could remain a disambiguation page - and the term is ambiguous: it is a common alternative spelling of the Sudanic language (see the bibliography at glottolog) and apparently attested for the Papuan one. Or do you believe that the Arawan language is the primary topic for "Madi", because the diacritics aren't sufficient as a distinguishing title? But then the same reasoning would also apply to "Ma'di", woudln't it? – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is my goal - and yes, I think that the acute accent (which doesn't appear on English keyboards) is insufficient as a distinguishing title, whereas the apostrophe is. Ideally I'd have both the accented and non-accented form redirect to Jamamadi language, just like it does with "Jamamadi / Jamamadí" at the moment. Since we use forms similar to "Madi" as alternatives for both of the other languages, it seems best to me to use the one that doesn't have an alternative - for Jamamadi-Jarawara-Banawa - as the primary article. Kielbasa1 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Jamamadi language has now been moved to Madí language , so that's OK, right? As for Madi language, it's not so much a question of whether the accent or the apostrophe is more or less likely to be omitted, it's about the fact that the term Madi (without diacritics or apostrophes) has been commonly used in the literature on both the Arawan and the Sudanic language. For example, when I search on google scholar for "Madi language", I don't see any of the two to be predominating in the results. Anyway, there's no need for the matter to depend on me: you can always start a formal discussion (see WP:RM#CM: the proposal would involve moving Madi language to Madi language (disambiguation); and your argument should be to the effect that the Arawan language is the primary topic). – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pissed off

You really piss me off sometimes. Regarding this, I have already started a new AfD and you need to stop misrepresenting things. I know you are an inclusionist but it really narks people when you go to lengths like this, and I don't mean just me. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had reverted the wrong edit, but I've already corrected that [1]. You're aware that you're misrepesenting things yourself here, aren't you? – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. And a week on, you are still not getting it. 1943 = Raj era. Raj era sources are not reliable, even if reprinted in a collection in 2017. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamani

You were bold in adding that source, I removed it, you added it back, I removed it again. And now you have added it back again. There is a discussion going on, as you are well aware, and you are at the limit of triggering the three revert rule as well as doing stuff contrary to the widely-accepted WP:BRD essay. Please self-revert, otherwise I think this is a matter for admins to look at. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you removed the source once with what I think we agreed was an erroneous rationale, and I reverted it. Then you boldly removed it again for another reason (that's the B), I reverted (that's the R), and I guess here we're at the D. If we really do want to discuss that, then maybe WP:RSN would be the best place? I don't think the issue is particularly important though: the same statement can be supported by another source (see AfD), and if the article does end up getting deleted, then the whole thing becomes moot. – Uanfala (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hi Uanfala, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GABgab 16:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this should hopefully mean less work for everyone. At least it will get rid of those pesky entries in my watchlist that I get everytime someone patrols a redirect I've created. – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panjabi

Hi Uanfala,

We sum population figures for just about all transnational language articles on WP, which is why we so often have a range of dates for the ref. Is there some reason Punjabi should be different? I agree that to some extent it's adding apples and oranges, but given that the figures themselves are often wrong (e.g. follow a different definition than we have of the language, rely on incomplete self-reporting, count ethic pop that doesn't actually speak the language, etc.), we probably don't have better than 1 sig fig anyway. Anyway, that's a general enough problem that it should be probably be discussed at Wikiproject language rather than on individual articles.

The artificial distinction of Punjabi was one of Hammarstrom's criticisms of Ethnologue. Sure, speakers of east or west dialects can be found in both countries due to pop movements, but the determination of which dialects are eastern and which western is still defined by the border. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what by Hammarstrom you're referring to? I'm not aware of anything he's written about Punjabi, and I hope it's not the glottolog entry that you have in mind. My objection to summing population figures was probably a bit more "theoretical" than it ought to have been, but that's acceptable only if the overall result isn't stated in too precise terms. If we had the population as "well over a hundred million" then that's fine no matter what. The problem with the number "120 million" is that it's precise enough to be wrong. It only includes the Eastern speakers from India and the Western ones from Pakistan, it doesn't take account of the few million Western speakers in India, or of the diaspora. If these are added – and here I'm going by only what I see on ethnologue and the Indian census – then the total is just above 125 million and that is – at the level of granularity we use in the infobox – 130 million. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Discretional contributions!! Pragmocialist (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiation advice needed.

User:Wakowako has an opinion to delete or merge pages that he/she feels to be duplicate. As you have already pointed it out that an administrative sub-division and a settlement are altogether different from one another, your opinion will be worth alot at Shahpur tehsil, Betul district. Thanks. Pragmocialist (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wakowako, a tehsil is an administrative unit normally centred on a town, but it's usually much bigger than it and can often include other towns and a large number of villages, typically around a hundred or so. The tehsil and the town are two different topics that warrant separate articles; see aslo Category:Tehsils of India. If you still believe the article should be deleted, you can take it to WP:AFD. And while we're at it, Pragmocialist, is there any reason why this article is titled using the district as a disambiguator? As far as I can see it's the only tehsil with this name in the state, so I'd reckon it could use a more recognisable title, like Shahpur tehsil, Madhya Pradesh. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct! For lower sub-divisions, that upper sub-division should be taken as disambiguator which has not has a lower sub-division of the same name. Thank You!!Pragmocialist (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for noticing the ping and correcting me, I was under the impression that additon of it is sufficient, wasnt aware of the new line requirement. thanks. DBigXrayᗙ 20:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's something I was't aware of until someone pointed it out to me not long ago; it's really conterintuitive at first, but make sense once you think about it (otherwise pings would just be triggered every time a signature is added by Sinebot or a comment is moved or archived). – Uanfala (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been hounded by the sinebot but that stage is gladly over. Agree this is indeed counterintuitive. I think the ping script just had to look at the addition of the new signature text to be able to decide if a ping is needed or not. moving a comment, isnt actually an addition of new signature, so it should not generate a ping. but anyway this is for Village pump and the devs to decide and I am sure they have considered all possibilities. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pa v. pan

We have had this conversation before.

html 5 definition for the lang= attribute has this:

The lang attribute (in no namespace) specifies the primary language for the element's contents and for any of the element's attributes that contain text. Its value must be a valid BCP 47 language tag, or the empty string.

— §3.2.5.2. The lang and xml:lang attributes

BCP 47 has these:

The Language Subtag Registry maintained by IANA is the source for valid subtags: other standards referenced in this section provide the source material for that registry.

— §2.2 Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation

When languages have both an ISO 639-1 two-character code and a three-character code (assigned by ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3, or ISO 639-5), only the ISO 639-1 two-character code is defined in the IANA registry.

— §2.2.1. Primary Language Subtag (page 9)

sil.org (custodian for ISO 639-3) shows that ISO 639-2/-3 code pan is equivalent to ISO 639-1 code pa. Library of Congress (custodian for ISO 639-2) shows that ISO 639-2 code pan is equivalent to ISO 639-1 code pa.

If you search the IANA Language Subtag Registry for Panjabi or Punjabi you find this record: 

%%
Type: language
Subtag: pa
Description: Panjabi
Description: Punjabi
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Guru
%%

Because pan is not defined in the IANA language subtag registry, it is not a valid code for use with the lang= attribute. Any browser or screen-reader reading Majhi dialect and encountering this html:

<span lang="pan" title="Punjabi language text">ਮਾਝੀ</span>

cannot be expected to know what pan means; browsers and screen-readers are expected to know what pa means.

Perhaps the best way around this issue is to rewrite that article's first sentence. There are two language codes in that sentence. The first, pnb has this IANA definition: 

%%
Type: language
Subtag: pnb
Description: Western Panjabi
Added: 2009-07-29
Macrolanguage: lah
%%

That definition is overridden in Module:Language/data/wp languages. Why? I have no idea; the provenance of that module is not at all well defined. So perhaps rewrite to this:

'''Majhi''' ({{lang-pnb|{{Nastaliq|ماجھی}}|label=[[Punjabi language|Western Punjabi]]}}; {{lang-pa|ਮਾਝੀ|label=Eastern Punjabi}}) is the ...
Majhi (Western Punjabi: ماجھی; Eastern Punjabi: ਮਾਝੀ) is the ...

(Eastern not linked because Eastern Punjabi language is simply a redirect to Punjabi language.)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed message. If a lang template produces output that browsers don't understand, then I agree with you that this should be fixed. However, I'm not seeing that here. As far as I can see – and you pointed that out yourself in the previous discussion – the promotion of three-letter codes to two-letter codes already happens template-internally. So that {{lang|pan|ਮਾਝੀ}} (three-letter code) outputs html with the correct two-letter code: <span title="Punjabi language text" lang="pa">ਮਾਝੀ</span>.
I still don't see the point of going around "promoting" the language codes within wikitext given that the html output is the same. As was pointed out before, three letter codes are occasionally preferable because they're more intuitive, and sometimes nothwithstanding the complete equivalence as apparently defined in the standard, a three-letter code might have different nuances of use than the two-letter one.
And as for the way Module:Language/data/wp languages defines ISO 639:pnb, this is better than the alternatives. The language is known as "Punjabi" (pnb and pan are simply different registers of the same language variety, they aren't distinguished in their common name), and the addition of "Western" is as far as I know an invention of SIL. The use of labels containing "Eastern" or "Western" should be avoided here: these are awkward and also superfluous: any text in "Eastern" Punjabi is immediately distinguishable from one in "Western" Punjabi because of the starkly different writing system. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really buy the 'intuitive' argument. Codes are codes and, always, codes must be decoded for their meanings to be known. These codes decode to specific definitions set by the ISO 639 custodians. At en.wiki, with its primarily English speaking editors and readers, all of fr, fra, fre, for 'French', are perhaps more-or-less easy to decode without reference to the standards; hy, hye for Armenian, as an example, not so much. This 'intuitive preference', it seems to me, is more like 'I'm familiar with this; I'm not familiar that' which, I suspect, is strongly influenced by the languages that we speak, have studied, have written about, ...
When two codes have identical definitions, there can be no nuance. Because the definitions of pa and pan are identical and fixed, the only way to express nuance in this application is to add something to one code – within the bounds set by the IETF language tag, BCP 47, and html rules – to distinguish the one code from the other. I do not know what that addition might be because I do not know what nuance might be applied to either of these codes.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding dab tool

Hey Uanfala, I saw your post on WP:FILM and was wondering what tool you used to get that information. --Gonnym (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Dabfix, more specifically its "Missing entries" report [2] (it gets updated regularly). Though it does take some manipulating to get it into one of those lits. If you're interested in the full list of film articles with missing entries, or something similar, let me know. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking lately about how to handle missing episode articles with missing entries (I've already have most episode which should be listed on dab pages listed here Category:Television episode articles with short description and disambiguated page names). Think you can help me get a report (if it is even possible) which of those are missing from the dab pages? --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the episode's title has a parenthetical disambiguator, and there exists a dab page for the ambiguous title, then it should be somewhere in the report of Dabfix. A somewhat more malleable list of the articles from the report can be found at User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries 2018-11-26. Then you can run petscan to give you a list of the articles that are both in Category:Television episode articles with short description and disambiguated page names and linked from that page: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=6558779. That's what you have in mind, right? – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly what I had in mind, thank you! So the results shown in the PetScan are the ones missing from dab pages right? Also, this list does not show results for which a dab page does not exist, right? --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it only shows articles missing from dab pages. If there's no dab page at either "Foo" or "Foo (disambiguation)", then the article won't be listed here. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The missing entries report has features turned off as the report is (still) over 10,000 disambiguation page fixes. When I was writing it, I was use to television episode in the form of Bar (Foo TV episode). I could add emoji icon for them like for biographies. — Dispenser 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Television episodes generally are either Bar "(Foo episode) or Bar (Foo)". There are a few other lesser used styles which are currently in discussion to be formalized but those are currently very rare cases. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that's how things used to, but I've just stumbled upon a counterexample. Could it be that Dispenser has upgraded Dabfix to look for missing hatnotes at primary topics? – Uanfala (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the last year, but (IIRC) it will throw warning if certain pages are not reachable. — Dispenser 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from Baluchi-language terms has been nominated for discussion

Category:Redirects from Baluchi-language terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native speakers

In page sindhi language Native peakers There are about 50 million Sindhis in Sindh province of Pakistan and about 2.5 million in India. And you write 25 million edite it an curection Skr sahar (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you did there wasn't a good idea: you changed a sourced figure to state something very different from what was given in the source. If you would like to update it, please also provide a different source, see Help:Introduction to referencing. But in this case it's worth bearing in mind that the total population of Sindh might be clsoe to 50 million, but less than two thirds of that are speakers of Sindhi. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In page Districts of Pakistan

This file is a modified version of another file on commons with the addition of the subdivisions of the Indian part of Kashmir. This current version is sourced to an external website, whose image licences are unclear, so it's probably not completely safe to be hosting their contet here (even though that is ultimately derived from something already hosted here: the additions are not trivial so can be subject to copyright). Also, the file isn't worth keeping as it's not usable anywhere on wikipedia: it's factually wrong in showing the Indian parts of Kashmir as though they were administered by Pakistan. I understand what you mean. However, Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan and that is why I upload this picture on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Nottingham (talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a map of the administrative subdivisions of Pakistan. If it includes areas that are not within Pakistan (even though many people would want them to be), then the map is inaccurate. But I don't think there's any point discussin this here, but you're more than welcome to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Districts of Pakistan.jpg. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maram language (Austro-Asiatic)

Unfortunately, the current target was around before the RfD closed, and one user even mentioned it. If the new target is a good one, the redirect really needs to go back to RfD instead of having multiple users decide to recreate it.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 05:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, this is getting ever more ridiculous. Amorymeltzer, any chance you might be able to reconsider your close of the RfD? I guess you might have missed Kwami's creation of an article about an Austroasiatic language called "Maram"? – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Fabrictramp, could you please consider not breaking links from dab pages and hatnotes when deleting redirects? – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm also not sure why you decided to EC-protect it. This is not going to affect either of the two users who've created it so far. And it's not that there's a swarm of newbie editors (or anyone else for that matter) who's remotely likely to decide to do anything about this extremely obscure redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I've created Maram language (Austroasiatic) to plug up the holes left behind (and yes, I'm aware that this is onlt technically a different redirect). I don't think I'd worry about the deleted one: as it uses a less common hyphenation variant in the disambiguator, though of course, that redirect has a long-ish history and it would be nice if it were undeleted. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine to me. If you don't mind the old title being deleted, I can restore the history and move it sans redirect to the non-hyphenated title; it does seem to me that some of the opposition at the RfD did stem from the less-than-ideal disambiguator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That will be great, thank you! (Just a side note that I don't think there was anything wrong with the form Austro-Asiatic: it's less commonly used but perfectly correct; it's just that there's no need to account, in my opinion, for all spelling variants within disambiguators). – Uanfala (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page watcher) What a fascinating situation. So we have a redirect, Maram language (Austro-Asiatic), that was nominated at RfD because there wasn't a suitable target. A few others agreed there was not a suitable target, until kwami came by and created the suitable target. Now that there is a suitable target, I don't think any of the "delete" comments are relevant unless they clarify that they also disagree with retargeting to Maharam language and explaining why. From my read, I don't see any opposition stemming specifically from the hyphenated disambiguator. Amorymeltzer, could you relist the discussion and we could then ping all participants to see whether or not they are okay with retargeting to Maharam language? That should give a better consensus then the current mess we have. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the situation fascinating too. Notice it's started even before the RfD? I think this mess is largely the result of the interaction between editors taking actions out of common sense but with disregard of proper process on the one hand, with editors punctiliously following policy but in disregard to common sense on the other. – Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was started before the RfD? That was a well-put summary. When common sense and proper process disagree, it is a good time to invoke WP:IAR. I thought recreating that redirect was a good invocation, but it appears not everyone agrees. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the series of edits to the redirect just before the RfD nomination [3], as well as this thread. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, was away for a few days! Is action on this still desired? I got the impression from the above that the current title is a good compromise? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Amorymeltzer: I am not comfortable with a redirect from a valid variant spelling being salted on grounds that three people !voted delete before the proper target article was established. Could you please relist? -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              @Tavix: Sure thing, but if we're talking about Maram language (Austro-Asiatic) wouldn't DRV be a better locale? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              @Amorymeltzer: I'd rather avoid an unnecessary step in case the outcome of DRV is to relist. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              Fair point! Doing now, expect some pings! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count d'Orgel's Ball

I hope you don't think I'm stalking your RM nominations! I didn't notice it happened to be yours, but I translated the French article about the book. I'd like to add the film The Ball of Count Orgel to the nomination proper, but I'm not sure how to do that. I've added a hatnote at the page.

Best wishes 94.21.204.175 (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting there, things should be a bit clearer now. I've added the film to the RM nomination (and I hope I haven't broken anything). – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also have translated the film article ,but there is nothing there that the English hasn't already. Pip pip, 94.21.204.175 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uanfala&oldid=880955664"