Talk:Bashkir language

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

Requested move 15 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that it's the Bashkir language is the primary meaning of "Bashkir" (and not, say, a Bashkir person). Could you elaborate on your reasoning and provide additional information to support it, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2015; 16:00 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose no reasoning provided on why this is primary instead of the ethnic group the Bashkirs -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ambiguous title. Khestwol (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Yet another attempt by Shhhhwwww to subvert NCLANG rather than having an honest discussion there. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two sets of each demonstrative pronoun[edit]

Is there a semantic, etymological, pragmatic (etc.) difference between the был/ошо and шул/теге pairs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.173.88 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand Bashkir[edit]

Template:Expand Bashkir has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I just misclicked, sorry. Letimo1 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declension table[edit]

@Letimo1: Hello! What is wrong with the table that you are removing? Please explain. —Alalch E. 18:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

// vs [] for allophones[edit]

My edit changing // for [] to indicate allophones was reverted, without any other explanation than "no these are better." Wikipedia and, you know, just linguistics textbooks in general use // for phonemic transcription and [] for narrow transcription (which includes allophones). So allophones are never indicated by //.

@Fdom5997, @Yue, @Bababashqort, @ThatDohDude, @Başqurd Am I wrong with this? Shouldn't we keep this consistent throughout the article, at least, anyway? IlmarisenVasara 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the editor who reverted you did so because you did not use the {{IPAblink}} template. I restored your edits with the template; if that was not the reason you were reverted, I am sure other editors will clarify their specific reasons here. Yue🌙 01:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, {{IPAslink}} is for //, and {{IPAblink}} is for []? IlmarisenVasara 01:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t put the allophones with . They were transcribed fine but were not properly written the way they should be on Wikipedia. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. I would have liked this explanation to be on the descriprion of the undoing, but I'm glad we're addressing any confusion. IlmarisenVasara 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue is absolutely right. They needed to be transcribed (like I said) with the template. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got it, thank you again. Just so you know, whatever you wrote after "with" didn't render properly so I don't see it, but I can gather from context that it's the proper template to use, which I can see anyway from Yue's edit. Sorry for the confusion, I was just looking for some clarification. IlmarisenVasara 01:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]