[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:Karmosin/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Vowel pronunciations

I have recorded my voice doing my best pronunciations of all 28 IPA vowels. Can you check them over and see if they are accurate?

Also, can you tell me what you think of this vowel chart, which I have just made? Denelson83 10:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the recordings a bit off. Check this page out for pronunciations you can model your recordings on.
The vowel chart looks pretty good. What do you intend to use it for?
Peter Isotalo 10:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Which vowels do you think I mispronounced? I tried to position my tongue in exactly the right spot in my mouth for each vowel. And as for the vowel chart, it's in the IPA article right now, and I'm hoping that it will get used in the articles for all of the individual vowels. Denelson83 13:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I've not listened to all of them, and I've not really sat down and tried to analyze them either. Positioning your tounge properly according to prescribed vowel heights and such is really hard (that's why I really haven't tried it yet). It's a lot harder than producing most consonant sounds. I'll check all of your recordings properly later tonight.
I think you should be bold and apply the new template. I doubt anyone will have any objections since a pure table isn't quite as appropriate for vowels as it is for consonants. Your's is a lot better, I think.
Peter Isotalo 13:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it is pretty hard to position the tongue properly, and I learned that the hard way while trying to record each of those vowels. After I recorded them all, I felt a bit of strain on my oral muscles.
I based my pronunciations of each vowel off of this web page, and from listening to the pronunciations on the site that you link to above, it seems each person could have his or her own specific method of pronouncing each of the vowels that are not usually encountered in his or her native language. Denelson83 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, here are my impressions of what the recordings actually sound like:
A second opinion might be good, but I feel pretty confident about my judgement on this one. I suggest you keep trying a bit longer until you get it right.
Peter Isotalo 12:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You know, maybe we should get together on Skype and you can evaluate my vowels in real-time.  Denelson83  00:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I used the sound samples on the web page that you suggested that I use, and recorded new versions of all 28 IPA vowels. I would now like to have them re-evaluated.  Denelson83  07:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Round two then. Mind you, I've listened to all vowels, and those that aren't mentioned here are the one that sound fine to me. No need to redo those.
Hmmm... And I was sure I was pronouncing this vowel with spread lips.  Denelson83 
The recordings I listened to of this vowel sound too "rhotacized."  Denelson83 
The recordings I have listened to of this vowel sound a bit too "L-coloured."  Denelson83 
Nope. I certainly did this one with spread lips as well.  Denelson83 
If possible, try finding recordings of languages in which these sounds actually occur, allophones or not. This way you have a non-contrived recording to use as reference which is usually easier to imitate.
Peter Isotalo 21:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, after listening to vowel samples from no less than four mutually independent sources, which actually gave me conflicting samples for certain vowels, I have recorded and uploaded new versions of these twelve vowels. Additional fine-tuning may be necessary, but I shall keep trying until I get the vowels right. I profusely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, given that I don't know if you're a professional linguist or not. Nevertheless, how do you think they are now?  Denelson83  08:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Final round

Round three. Fight!

Yes, I was indeed saying the letter "A" in English. And I think I know what you're getting at when you say there's a glide in it, because I can feel the apex of my tongue shifting toward the back of my mouth when I pronounce this vowel. What I will try and do when pronouncing this vowel again is counteract the backward glide.
Bingo.
  • [ɶ] - open front rounded vowel - You need to further lower your jaw for this one and get it into the same position as when pronouncing an [a]. Don't worry if it sounds very contrived; as far as we know this vowel doesn't really exist in any natural language.
Hmmm. Seems when I try to get my jaw and tongue into the correct position for [a], and then round my lips, my tongue instinctively glides back and gives me an [ɒ]. Then when I try to counteract that gliding by sticking the tip of my tongue out of my mouth, and then try pronouncing this sound again, I get something like [ø]. Crazy, eh?
Hey, you got it as far as I can tell.
  • [ɨ] - close central unrounded vowel - Still quite like an [ʏ]. Here's a very good recording of [ɨ] in a Swedish dialect. It's the very last sound in recording 5.17. You can also check out all four recording for Viby at SweDia, but these are a bit harder to pick out, especially if you don't know Swedish. If you listen carefully, though, you'll hear that any long /i/, like in svin, i or min is realized as an [ɨ].
What I'm trying to do with these "exotic" vowels is pronounce two vowels that I know in opposing directions on the same aperture or backness, then average them out. I refer to this technique as "benchmarking." In this case, I am trying to pronounce the average of [i] and [ɯ], but I must have put my tongue too far forward and lowered my jaw a bit. Also, it seems Peter Ladefoged pronounces [ɨ] and [ʏ] very similarly as well.
It still sounds both rounded and pretty much front.
As talanted as Ladefoged is concerning the analysis of sounds, he's not all that hot when it comes to pronouncing them. The sound quality might be interfering and there's the possibility that you get crappier at this when you're getting pretty old.
After listening to Paul Meier's vowel samples, I am quite sure my recording of this vowel is very close to Paul Meier's [ɨ], and consequently conclude that I mispronounced [ʏ]. My sound sample of [ʏ] has now been updated as a result. Also, that recording of [ɨ] that you gave me here really doesn't help, as there isn't enough of a waveform to make out whether that last vowel is indeed a [ɨ].
I'm attempting to pronounce this vowel by benchmarking it as well. In this case, I am trying to pronounce the average of [ø] and [o], but I must have put my tongue too far forward.
  • [ə] - schwa - It still sounds a bit forward to me, but I can't be sure. I suggest you ask for a second opinion on this one.
I already have, at Talk:Schwa.
And I responded. It still doesn't sound central to me.
Done.
As expected with the rhotic dialect that I possess (Canadian English). Attempting to benchmark this vowel gives me another [ø]-like sound.
It does sound quite close to [o], but with some "l-colouring" in it as well.
Very close to a close-mid back unrounded vowel. The Swedish example is very close to the cardinal value. Try imitating that.
As far as I can hear, the [ʊ] in your Swedish example actually sounds closer to an [o].
  • [ɯ] - close back unrounded vowel - Maybe I'm confusing the lip rounding with lip spreading. Try not doing much with your lips at all.
I will try relaxing my lips while pronouncing this sound, and maybe I might get closer to it. I am indeed closing my mouth as far as it will go for a vowel and putting my tongue dorsum as far back as possible.
I think you got it.
  • [ɤ] - close-mid back unrounded vowel - Way forward. Get it all the way back there like with an [o]. I'm making a Mandarin recording you might want to listen to.
I will try to benchmark this sound while keeping my tongue still.
Uhm, you seem to be down to something like an [ɒ]. Try imitating the sample (without the high level tone) rather than benchmarking.
When I listened to your Mandarin example, it sounded like a glide from [ʊ] to [ʌ], if I consider [ʊ] to be the vowel in English "put".
I can agree that there's minor gliding going on, but it all sounds close to close-mid or half-close to me. I hear no [ʊ] to [ʌ] in the recording. Imagine this vowel to be an [ø] without rounding and further back in the mouth.

A few vowels at at time, but I think we'll get there eventually...
Peter Isotalo 12:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

We sure will.  Denelson83  23:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm striking the vowels that sound just right. Just keep responding the way we're doing it now (with the italics). I'll get to the uncommented ones soon enough.
Peter Isotalo 08:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I have bolded the vowels that I have since updated the sound samples for. Please un-bold them once you have checked them over.  Denelson83  01:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 01:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Very diplomatic, Abramson. I appreciate your effort.
Peter Isotalo 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that's kind of you to say. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 16:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary moves

Would you have a moment to join the conversations on the respective Talk pages of Banana (person), Egg (person), Jook-sing, Gweilo, Laowai, Svenne and Blatte? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Gracias por su ayuda en la página East Asian language :) --Dpr 17:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

De nada. / Peter Isotalo 18:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm probably stupid but what does Isotalo mean?
Interestingly, my middle name is Peter, so I feel some connection--and I'm part Swedish (from Malmö, ca. 1900), 同胞!
un-spirutual--is this spelling intentional?
Anti-separatist: well this puts you at odds to some wings of modern "liberalism" who might otherwise support you as a result of certain movements (e.g. Palestine--and no I'm not conflating separatism and self-determination). Plus does this gibe with being "pro-Russian" in your words?
I really 佩服 your language ability. Did your English flower mostly because of the internet? (Yes I know that most educated non-Americans/Brits absorb a huge about of Anglophone lit/media). Anyway I'm glad you are an emigre to English Wiki! Sorry to hear about the Swedish Wiki situation. How did you learn 日语 and 汉语?
Lastly, what are your feelings on the degree/nature of the mutual intelligibility between Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish? How easy are they to understand between each other? (You're highly encouraged to contribute to mutual intelligibility and to the pages on Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, and Scandinavian languages--it's an intriguing issue. Au revoir. Vous ne parlez pas francais? :) --Dpr 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
No. I haven't dabbled in French (so far). My English is good because I had an English tutor for about a year from age 8 to 9, because Sweden is heavily Americanized and exposed to plenty of English-language programming and films and because I have a knack for languages. I've learned Chinese and Japanese through high school classes (two terms each) and through private studies.
The anti-separatism is only really reserved to those situations where it's used by groups who are in no way supressed by a central government, like Skåne or Quebec. I'm absolutely not a nationalist, but since the nation-state is still one of the cornerstones and conduits of modern democracy, I don't like attempts by spoiled local regionalists to pick them apart just because they want to have their own flag and invent new nationalistic myths to counter the old ones. This sentiment doesn't include valid struggles for independence such as that of the Palestinians or Kurds, but I admit that I would prefer if the relevant states such as Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey got their shit together and started treating these groups with the respect they deserve within the confines of the existing states instead of insisting on quasi-racist policies that lead to nothing but internal conflicts, suffering and death. I don't support Russia's mucking about in Chechnya for one second, but I do believe that Russia is more often than not treated with a good deal of Western contempt and stale old Cold War-prejudices.
As for Scandinavian languages, they're already on my to-do list since way back. I'm aiming to bring at least one more language, or perhaps the language family article, to FA-status. I'm currently trying to make sense of the obscenely voluminous and complicated The Phonology of Danish by Hans Basbøll to improve both Danish language and Danish phonology. The mutual intelligibility is summarized fairly well in North Germanic languages and there's information about how the languages relate to one another in the individual articles as well.
Peter Isotalo 12:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

North Carolina Research Campus

Someone appears to have vandalized your user page.

User:Karmosin

Just thought you might want to know -- it seems that vandalizing a user page does not ring any alarms.

Cheers Ben@liddicott.com 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it can be quite a nuisance. I'm moving a post that was made smack in the middle of my user page here.
Peter Isotalo 22:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Your Own Rules
What a load of cheats and liars you are. There is no more User Page for Ashida Kim, proving that, as I said before, YOU closed it. Every time one of my friends comes here to cast a vote for deletion they are blocked and their vote deleted. You say that if a page comes under an edit war you will close it, but whenever anyone tries to edit it you revert and block their IP. You even accuse me of doing it and prevent me from making any more entries on the AfD page. See boys, this is a rigged game. Just like I said it was. You refuse to play by your own rules. So stop pretending you are on some "noble mission" to save the world from mean old Ashida. There is an old Gaelic saying, "Them that don't like us, may God turn their hearts, and if he can't turn their hearts may he turn their ankles so we will know them by their limping." That is why you boys are lame ass trolls, LOL
Ashida Kim
original posting

Guest house

I'd never heard of a guest house-for-profit either, but the links on the page point to exactly such entities. I think it's just a matter of different cultures using the same term to mean different things. -- BD2412 talk 23:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a longer version of this at the AfD, but "I don't understand the subject matter" isn't grounds for deletion. I'd welcome suggestions as to what could be clarified, though (article talk page is probably the best location). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

PR-flooding

How can a subject be over-represented? For one, no rule against PR flooding, for another, that's a lousy argument; are these article of less worth just because they are not about a real person, place or thing? Also, the PR doesn't seem that bogged down; often, their advice just isn't good enough, as they often give you bits and pieces and make you guess what else to add to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Vandalism of Cherokee Language Pages

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

If you redirect and blank this page again, I will initiate WP:RFA for vandalism. You are not part of our culture nor do you known our language and you are disrupting my work. Gadugi 21:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've explained why the information isn't relevant in several posts, most of which you have ignored or misunderstood. Your accusation of vandalism is about as relevant as your point-making in nominating articles for AfD. If you want to start an RfAr on me for vandalism, I suggest you read up on conflict resolution before doing it.
Peter Isotalo 21:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The Afd voting process left votes for keep and you views were rejected by the majority. Please take your black bead and start a new page somehwere else. You have not only failed to honor the views of the majority, at the first opporutnity, you were disruptive and blanked the page. Thou art banished from this page. See Cherokee Clans section on voting for an explanation. 67.177.35.211 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
People voted to keep because you made a bad faith-nomination. As you can see at least one user figured out that this was about a Cherokee dictionary definition and voted to delete. Mind you, a dicdef is defined not by contents, but by choice of subject. A dicdef is still a dicdef even if you add a bunch of seemingly encyclopedic content.
And please don't lie about my actions. I didn't blank any page, but rather redirected the article as per my previous motivations. The ones you've chosen to ignore.
Peter Isotalo 22:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya

I see your point on redirecting Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya, but on the other hand it is a bit of a contentious move. Why don't you take it to AfD and suggest it be redirected? It's a bit odd to AfD an article you don't want deleted, but AfD has the right infrastructure for such a discussion and in the past it's prevented a lot of revert warring on redirects. --fvw* 02:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to take an article about a native name of a tribe on which we already have an article on to AfD just to get it redirected. And I don't think AfD has the right infrastructure for this at all. Furthermore, AfD votes are whether an article should be deleted or not, not whether they be merged or redirected or whatever.
What makes me the most reluctant to burden AfD with this is that neither Gadugi nor DES have been the least interested in any type of discussion. Why don't you help out instead? Either by redirecting or discussing.
Peter Isotalo 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Karmosen, you were warned. Request for sanctions is being presented to the arbitration committee. While you have the right to your views, the Afd already concluded and your views were rejected. This type of action is wasting my time and making me less enthused about writig content. Gadugi 05:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

user:gadugi requests administrative sanctions and dispute resolution against user:karmosin

An Afd process was commeneced by me aganst page ah-ni-yv-wi-ya. The Afd process concluded with Karmosin putting forward views that the page should be redirected and merged. The majority rejected his views. After the Afd ended, Karmosin vandlaized then blanked the page in question, then out of retaliation flagged a page which had just completed Afd that morning for a second Afd process. I want 1. the Afd revered on page Gadugi and Karmosin sanctioned for violating wiki/Wales policy of We Are Nice People Who Do Not Act This Way. On his user page his lists himself as a "rebel" which isn't something that fits in with Wiki's peaceful honeybee meme. While I respect all peoples right to their views and opinions, after an Afd completes, nominating pages out of retaliation in an attempt to oppress the majority is improper. I would like this user punished for 1) violating policies and 2) wasting yet more of my valuable time answering stupid and frivolous Afd requests and 3) interfering with me writing more articles.

Afd vote on FTS

Sincere apologies for clobbering your vote. Don't know how it happened, and I assure you it wasn't intentional. Jkelly 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

'S ok. Shit happens.
Peter Isotalo 02:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic and Regan/Doral High

The list is not cruft, because it's the sort of information someone would come to wikipedia to find. Of course, I don't think the list needs its own article and should be merged, perhaps you could reconsider your vote to merge?

As for the high school:

I left some comments below your vote. The campus has already been topped off and schedule to open soon so it is built. The school itself is also functioning, since it has students, admins, teachers, a sports tema, school government, it's just that since the campus is being fixed up then the students are at another campus. Also, the article is a daughter of M-DCPS, created as part of that page, so it's not really schoolcruft. PRueda29 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't vote to merge articles I don't want to keep and you don't need AfD permission to merge content. Just do it.
Please don't argue non-essential arguments, though. Any school which doesn't considerably standout from other schools is non-notable. The fact that it's not even finished yet just makes it ridiculously non-notable. And if you're curious about notability-criteria, then we're talking either the top 10 most prestigious schools in the state or country or notability through getting featured bigtime in some major movie or the likes. Everything else is pure schoolcruft and will be loved only by those attending the school, if even that.
Peter Isotalo 05:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's just forget the whole thing. I'm not really up for starting up an argument or making an enemy. Like you said, let's not argue non-essential arguments. Sorry I contacted you on the matters. It was my mitake. PRueda29 08:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, dude. Don't feel bad. I wasn't upset or anything, I'm just a very staunch deletionist.
Peter Isotalo 11:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just kinda felt insulted with you comment: "Arbitrary lists of poorly verified statistics? I think you're confusing this with what you come to Wikipedia for, PReuda". The list can be easily verified, and I wasn't trying to force yo uto changr your vote, just letting you know that it's the sort of information people come to Wikipedia for. Also, I didn't know about the merging thing with AfDs, I only started voting like two days ago. PRueda29 12:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I apologize then. What I meant was that I really don't think people come to Wikipedia for these kinds of snippets of information. In this instance, it seemed like a particularly pointless list, mainly because it was so damned short (and without any actual figures). Overall, I'm quite critical to lists, because I think a lot of them are just an excuse to bypass the WP:NOT-criteria and because they often contain unedited and uncritical info or just raw statistics.
As for merging, you can do this whenever you want during an AfD. You can do basically anything to an article that's being AfD except redirect it or remove the AfD-sign. That includes moving the information in the article or list someplace else. Usually, it's a good idea to point this out in the AfD subpage.
Peter Isotalo 20:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Since the information on that list is detailed elsewhere on the internet, I'm going toto go ahead and merge it, but I think I might wait until a consensus is reached. I don't believe it should have its own article, but it does deserve mention in Wikipedia. PRueda29 23:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Super-notable AND encyclopedic

Testing your encyclopedic convictions with these glorious examples:

If you add it, it's encyclopedic and notable. Correct? Brad Spry 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've actually been pondering Sci-Fi Skane lately, and I've been thinking about redirecting it to bob hund since it's just a side project. But if you're gonna claim that the other two are non-notable, well, AfD them to your heart's content. Just don't be so silly as to compare them to some overgrown shopping center with laboratories attached to it.
Peter Isotalo 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I am offended by your derogatory characterization and remarks. The core of the project you question is a laboratory with over 100 scientists. Shopping center? Yes, the project contains retail space, but practically every campus does (there's a coffee shop in UNC Charlotte's research library). You need to tone down your rhetoric. You, not questionable articles, are ruining wikipedia. Brad Spry 23:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you're the one picking a fight at someone else's talkpage because you're upset about an AfD-result. Taking offense at an innocuous remark about a construction project is taking things a tad too seriously. But I certainly look forward to ruining more articles in the same way I've sabotaged subtlety, Reuben Sturman and especially that piece of garbage Swedish language.
Peter Isotalo 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Valrhona, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Various comics articles

I'm somewhat concerned at your moving of pages without prior discussion. Whilst I appreciate you are trying to create uniformity, you seem to be disregarding the correct terminology. Perhaps it would be better to discuss your ideas at WikiProject Comics before overturning any consensus already formed. I appreciate your comments there. Steve block talk 16:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate this kind of auto-reverting. Please keep in mind that status quo and consensus are two very different things. I've already discussed this and motivated myself very clearly to you why your separation of "comic" and "comic book" from a panelologists view is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I've asked you for sources and references to support your views, yet you've provided none and have only claimed your own opinion as an argument. You've also not pointed me to any type of discussion about consensus at the project page either.
Peter Isotalo 17:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the difference between status quo and consensus, are you aware of negotiation? I'm sure you'd also agree that every time you have asked me to source my arguments I have, and I find it worrying that you disregard the sources and my supplying of them. As to you motivating yourself as to the difference between "comic" and "comic book", I'm afraid you have failed to both make any sort of case for your view, support your view with any sources or show any understanding of my points. I wonder if there is a language barrier problem here? As to whether your view is more encyclopedic than mine, I'm sure you'll agree that's unnneccessary, a personal attack, counter productive and not true. As to pointing you to any consensus, please see the talk page at comic book for starters. However, my intention was not to point you to any consensus but to ask you to engage in discussion regarding your view. Steve block talk 06:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAC

See Denis Law wrt my obj and use of inotes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

American comic book

I placed it as one of the leading producers because I'm sure I've read that manga outpaces it, but yes, I'll try and source that before I rewrite again. The other problem is whether manga and comic books are competing formats, of course. Steve block talk 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, manga is most definetly more of a subgenre or style of comic. Just consider that manga exists not only as printed comic books, but as webcomics and translated to other languages and published domestically. In Sweden, for example, we now have several successful comic books that consist of nothing but translated manga which don't differ from pure Swedish comic books like Lilla Fridolf, 91:an Karlsson or Pyton in any major respect except that they're read "backwards".
Peter Isotalo 14:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Panelology

Hi, I do the bulk of the DYK updates, and infrequently I add revamped stubs and significantly rewirtten articles to the template (There are actually very few suggestions of this type, probably < 1 month). But I somehow managed to miss you question last week. So the anwser is yes I would have, but its too late now. Next time just go ahead and suggest it.--nixie 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian language

Hello. I've promised to start revising the Lithuanian language to make it more informative month before. I don't know if I'll be able to keep the promise, although the fall haven't ended yet. But a hope dies in the last turn. Now, I'd like to ask, if You know any software to make Wikipedia pages, which gives actual view in a window (independently from the web, with editing possibilities desired), but allowes to write the wikipedian encoding to a file. I saw pages on the Latin language in the wikibooks, and many things of structure fit for the Lithuanian language, meaning for a wikibook for the Lithuanian language. And I suppose, that a software, I described before, would make my revising faster. Thanks. Linas Lituanus 15:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I know of no software that emulates Wikipedia and I doubt it exists. The developers are busy enough as it is and I doubt they would spend time on developing one. I'm really not the right person to ask, though. You should query a developer about it.
But, is it really necessary? Why not just paste the text like any other and fill in the wikification afterwards?
Peter Isotalo 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes are evil if you wield them evily

Hey Peter, Saw your posts on evil infoboxes. Take a look at WP:WARS, an idea sprung from the same objections. It does aim to make an infobox, but a flexible one which is dictated by facts, rather than facts being summed up because there is an infobox. I'd like to hear what you think. Greets, --The Minister of War 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wb

Hi Peter and welcome back after your break. I read your user page, and since you are a deletionist, maybe you would be interested in putting the WP:SWNB on your watchlist. AfD on Swedish topics are usually posted there.

Best regard, Fred-Chess 15:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the greet, Fred. I'm keeping an eye on that list, though I'm quite disillusioned with the state of affairs over at AfD. Way too much wiki and not nearly enuogh 'pedia. :-/
Peter Isotalo 15:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok... I see your point... another thing is, there isn't currently anything else at all going on at the SWNB, it is basically inactive apart from Alarm's listing of New Articles. So don't feel unwelcomed by former sv:wikipedians or anyone else.... // Fred-Chess 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bolding on dabs

You reinstated the bolding in Norwegian. The MoS is a demonstation of the community's feeling. Many think that bolding is not needed, take a look at this discussion. --Commander Keane 02:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, didn't realise you were Peter Isotalo and in fact that discussion link above is about your discussion. Maybe you could reduce confusion by stating your signature at the top of this page. You can even bold it if you want. --Commander Keane 08:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point there. I'll cook something up.
Peter Isotalo 08:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your objection to my votes on Talk:Skånska

I thought my support of the Skåne Swedish option was a nice compromise precisely because it avoids the difficult 'dialect' word. I've read the pages you've linked to but I personally find 'linguistics' to be somewhat clumsy and silly but if that really is some sort of standard here then i support a move to Skånska (linguistics). I see little reason to change my earlier votes (see approval voting). Feel free to copy this comment into Talk:Skånska. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem of the non-English title. And even if we were to decide on "Skånska", we don't need "(linguistics)", because it's just a disambiguator the way XXX language is a disambiguator from XXX people. Scanian is a dab page and should remain so, even if there's currently no article called Scanian people (or something similar). Please note that the move to Skånska was made unilaterally by Wiglaf with no attempt to build consensus for the move on the talkpage.
Peter Isotalo 11:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Skånska

Hi, I've voted at Talk:Skånska. I'm neutral on keeping it at Skånska, opposed to Scanian dialect, Scanian Swedish, and Scanian language, weakly supporting of Scanian, and supporting of Scanian (linguistics). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Angr. I hope people come to their senses about this thing. You forgot to sign one of your votes, though...
Peter Isotalo 18:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Ostrobothnia

Why'd you remove the references to the regions with 'Ostrobothnia' in their names from the disambiguation page? They should be there to make it clear that they're different regions from Ostrobothnia. - ulayiti (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

They're not disambiguations. Dab pages are navigational aids that are used to separate articles which would otherwise have identical names, not just collections of closely associated links.
Peter Isotalo 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I know, but surely having links to regions with 'Ostrobothnia' as an important part of their names is an aid to navigation? - ulayiti (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
shrug I don't think it should, but I'm not going to fight about it.
Peter Isotalo 15:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

Please talk about the changes you want to make first. And please enter a discourse about it. For example how would you deal with the hypothetical examples given? It is this day to day working with WP:RM which has to be addressed. Personally I would have liked to have a higher margin then 60% for a consensus when there was a lager number of people expressing an interest. But that was too complicated to implement in a few sentences. As most WP:RM moves only have half a dozen or less expressing an opinion the 60% works well. And by the way as Churchill said democracy is the least worst solution. The procedures used should be seen to be fair and not arbitrary, they should be open and easily understandable to all. For example see the decision that the end of Talk:Großglockner#Discision Philip Baird Shearer 15:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the RM talkpage, not here. I have discussed the matters and I've replied to your concerns already. If you really think that setting figures is a good way of reaching consensus, then you've misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Just read the policy pages on consensus and look at how consensus is interpreted in other parts of Wikipedia.
Peter Isotalo 15:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindi

Hi Peter, I really think Hindi should be at Hindi language because all the language articles have "language" in the title, and this is just to remain consistent. English, Spanish, and Sinhalese are all disambig pages, because they can also refer to the English people, Spanish people, and Sinhalese people. --Hottentot

This is not a question of consistency, it's a matter of disambiguation. The "language" is there to separate them from the ethnic group. For precedents, see Esperanto, Inuktitut and Sanskrit. Calling them "XXX language" just encourages people to think that it's the way you actually use these words in prose.
Peter Isotalo 18:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Template lang-uk

I see you've been removing template:lang-uk from a lot of pages, with the explanation "Removed pointless meta-template". Why are you going to all this trouble to remove this template? It serves a useful purpose:

  • helps editors consistently mark up similar meta-text
  • marks a span of text with language metadata: <code><span lang="uk" xml:lang="uk"></span>

And why would you undo something that many other editors have worked to put in place, without discussing it first? You're just begging for a wasteful revert war involving hundreds of articles. —Michael Z. 2005-10-15 21:01 Z

What on earth is the point of the template, then?
Peter Isotalo 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM look

Hi - I've been working on a new look at User:RN/RM - it includes your wording tweaked a bit by me.... what do you think :)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Deletion tools-template should be in there, but I guess it doesn't hurt to have it there. And the wording... well... I put it there for a reason so I definetly agree with that. I think the bolding is especially important to stop people from trying to force votes without actually discussing first.
Peter Isotalo 22:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Francophone --> French

I'm a little puzzled by this move, which seems to have been made without asking around first. 'Francophone' is not the same as French language or even just 'French-speaking'. There is a political, cultural, and economic dimension in places like Africa that is completely lost in an article on the French language. The French language article is pretty much focussed on Metropolitan France (e.g., it has a section on 'modern issues' which deals with issues like 'franglais', a particular fascination of the French).

I consider the move to be somewhat assimilationist :) Wouldn't it have been better to expand on 'Francophone' rather than transfer it holus-bolus to 'French language'? Bathrobe _French" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">04:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Assimilationist I am, but I am also a very devout amateur linguist with the utmost respect for NPOV and that dialects and variants of a language be given fair treatment. I am very strong supporter of standardized national dialects, but I also feel that all people have the unalienable right to speak their native dialects in contexts where it is practical to do so; i.e. any situation that doesn't lead to intelligibility. In the case of standard languages, it has to focused on at least a bit in a language article. Most people around the world recognize Parisisian French as at least somewhat "neutral" French even if not everyone agrees. Any "XXX-phone" is always a dictionary definition and making a POV-fork out of it is not a reasonable solution. If you have quibbles about French language, then take it up in that article. I'll gladly support you if it has to do with broadening the scope of the article. And frankly, there wasn't any encyclopedic information in Francophone when I redirected that wasn't mentioned in French language. Please keep in mind that an article that only duplicates info in other articles and adds a little language usage info to it really isn't useful to anyone.
Peter Isotalo 10:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sinhala

Hi Peter,

I added a comment to Sinhalese, about a difference from the normal policy. I appreciate if you can have a look at that. Thanks, Greenleaf 05:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

{{ll}}

Hi Peter. I saw your edit to the article on the Romanian language. Is there a problem with using the otherwise very convenient {{ll}} template many times on the same page? I tend to use it a lot, so I'd like to know if there is such thing as "overusing" it. Thanks. --AdiJapan 07:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Adi, templates are a strain on the servers. They're not useful if you use them only to save yourself the barest minimum of typing time. Especially when the template is bounced off of another template, like the ll-template is. And whatever you do, please don't replace existing links with it.
Peter Isotalo 09:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remember that. --AdiJapan 11:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Templates only force page caches to be rebuilt when the templates are edited. The use of templates like template:lang-ru, etc., adds no load on the server at all, except at the infrequent times that these templates are altered. Don't spread misinformation. —Michael Z. 2005-10-16 22:24 Z
Right, Michael. {{ll}} redirects to {{LangugeLink}}, incase you hadn't noticed. Read Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates and please don't say things like that about me again.
Peter Isotalo 22:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Cut n' paste moves

Hi Karmosin - I see you attempted to revert my moves on Phylum - however instead of normal moves you used cutting and pasting - which breaks the history of the page and thus, I'm pretty sure, violates the GFDL. I reccomend you revert your moves and ask for administrator assistance at WP:RM Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I sure didn't cut'n'paste anything. I moved phylum to phylum (biology), redirected phylum (disambiguation) to phylum and then turned it to a disambiguation page. What's the problem?
Peter Isotalo 21:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure - you cut n' pasted Phylum (disambiguation) to Phylum, thus not properly moving the history of Phylum (disambiguation). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I wrote a new disambiguation page. Compare the two versions.
Peter Isotalo 21:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is that you didn't properly move the page - you simply redirected, which violates the GFDL. See Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut_and_paste_moves. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think I see your contention here (that you wrote a new page). I'll ask around and fix it up then, thanks :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think all you need to do is to delete phylum and then redirect phylum (disambiguation) there. I really don't mind if you just steal my wording or not...
Peter Isotalo 21:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, assuming this is new content, I think what I'd need to do is delete all of the history prior to the redirect on phylum (disambiguation). However, I'm not entirely sure on that so I've got a line into someone who knows more on those kinds of matters (hopefully :)). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary. Just delete phylum and then move phylum (disambiguation) into the deleted article space. I've seen it done before and I don't mind getting my edits deleted. Trust me, it's not a problem.

Peter Isotalo 22:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Terribly sorry

... Peter, for blocking your spanking new account! I was watching the newusers log during a particularly nasty bit of sockpuppetry/improper account creations and when I saw this one pop up, my first thought was that it was someone trying to impersonate you. Totally my fault, but I'm glad I was wrong. The block's gone poof, and I hope you can forgive my trigger finger. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 15:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

One one condition only. That I get to tease you for misspelling "mea culpa" in the unblock summary. :-)
Peter Isotalo 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
A small price to pay. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to purplefelt

That was an honest question and I wondered why she voted on it? I am sorry about my tone, that is completely my fault. I have removed 'The List' My mistake. I was simply tryng to help out another user. And when she undid my change of my talk page I overreacted considered it an attack on me.

Prodego talk 23:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Try not to overreact, then. If you get upset, do something else for a while instead of replying in anger. And if you want to apologize to purplefelt, I suggest doing so at her talkpage, not mine.
Peter Isotalo 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Vowel charts

Amharic vowel chart.png, Bulgarian vowel chart.png, and Cantonese vowel chart.png, from your latest batch, are done and on Commons now. You also included Portuguese, which I did back in June.

Slovene, Taba, and Thai are next on my list, being the last three 'uncomplicated' ones. The Danish chart doesn't seem to present any especial problem, other than that some of the vowels (viz. e) look like they're in rather strange places. Croatian will require marginally more effort for the 'ie' diphthong arrow - my usual graphics package's arrow tool sucks balls, so I'll need to get creative. French and Hausa also require a little more effort, as several of the points are multiply labeled.

However, I have no clue what to do about Czech, as the vowels marked aren't nice points but areas. Irish is in the same boat, because in addition to ten vowels neatly specified as points, two (a and ɪ) are areas.

None of this is insurmountable, they're just not as neat and tidy as the preceding charts were.

IceKarmaॐ 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should take the "area vowels" literally. If the phoneticians have decided that they're all over the place, then I'd say we should draw them that way. As for the Danish, keep it on hold for now, because I still haven't taken the time to properly sift through Basbøll's book to check which of them are actually phonemes. That will take some time, since Danish phonology is by far the most complicated I've encountered. It's easily twice (thrice in some cases) as big as almost all the other books in the Oxford phonology series.
Btw, I think you should insert some sort of credit to the handbook in the image comments at Commons. Right now it may look to others as if us Wikipedians did the vowel charting ourselves. Any thoughts?
Peter Isotalo 14:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get stuck into that, then, holding off on Danish for now. I'm more than willing to do the legwork to add a comment crediting the source of the information to all the charts I've done thus far, but as you have the Handbook, would you mind drafting a suitable message and dropping it on my talk page?
IceKarmaॐ 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Better yet, I'll do it for you.
Peter Isotalo 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Croatian vowel chart.png, Czech vowel chart.png, Slovenian vowel chart.png, Taba vowel chart.png, and Thai vowel chart.png are done. IceKarmaॐ 00:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The Relapse

Hiya, Peter, I think The Relapse is about ready for your sharp eye now. (No hurry, though.) The empty last section is meant to be pretty short, say about the length of the Lead, maybe. Don't bother too much about minor details, they await further obsessive fiddling anyway. It's the clarity of the whole that's my big concern right now, and the dullness/interestingness. Are some bits too long? Are some bits too short? Are some bits too boring? Are some bits too explanatory? Is the whole too repetitous/not repetitious enough? And anything that strikes you, of course, and feel free to Be Bold. Much appreciated. Oh, and where is Wikipedia:Featured footnote candidates, do you know? I want to nominate Note 2. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Itlalian and Chinese

You just edited Italian and Chinese. Could you not use piping, it confuses navigation. Also, when you remove red linked entries, could you put them on the talk page, they can be useful. --Commander Keane 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

How does piping confuse navigation and which red links are you talking about? There were none in either of those entries.
Peter Isotalo 17:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about the red links thing, I miss understood your edit summary. What I meant was when you remove any entry, like Italian cuisine, could you put it on the talk, because it's handy when doing link repair. Piping is confusing because, for example, you have just typed in "Italian" and you arrive at the dab. Then it want's you to click on "Italian" to go to Italian language - but as far as you know you are at "Italian". Also, piping makes it harder to read through all the entries quickly, without having the scroll over to see the destination.--Commander Keane 00:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibreak: you're missed

You were already missed, I hope you return soon! Bishonen | talk 20:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Removed pointless use of kana

On the Japanese titles page, you removed the kana for "-chan," calling them "pointless." Seeing as all the other entires include kana, it doesn't seem so pointless as it's keeping within the style already established for the page. Please let me know in more detail why you think the use of the kana is pointless. Feel free to reply here or on the Talk:Japanese titles page as I'm watching both. --nihon 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reponses to your Hugo Chavez FAC vote

I appreciate your suggestions and input relating the Chavez FAC at this late hour. It has been up for almost two weeks, and there has already been a vast amount of discussion on every aspect of the article, including size determination, sourcing, slant, etc. These are all archived both in the FAC page itself and in the article's tage pages.
I have responded to all your points. Please examine them and reconsider your vote — that is, whether you will maintain your objection, change it, or merely strike it. My regards, Saravask 04:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you really expect that I would budge after you lambast for being a Venezuelan-ignorant Swede? I strongly dislike your debating style. You seem far more concerned with mild personal attacks and polemics than factual argumentation. I'm not going to withdraw any objections unless you show a minimum of will to compromise.
Peter Isotalo 12:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. No problem. I apologize. This is my manner, and I was just frustrated after listing all the facts. I'll keep it civil, and emphasize the facts. Thanks. Saravask 12:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Mind you, I'm not convinced by most of your factual arguments either. I think you're too submerged in the article subject to see some of the flaws and you're making my objection into something personal. You focus on extremely minor details, which is exactly what the problem is with most of the notes. Again, try to suggest som compromises, especially considering the utterly chaotic footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 12:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Zh-yuan2.ogg

Thanks for Zh-yuan2.ogg. Great pronounciation as well by the way. ;) Yeu Ninje 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology naming convention under vote

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Norse_mythology)

Use Anglicized names in article titles for names with well known Anglicized forms, like "Odin", "Thor", "Valhalla" and "Asgard".

For all others a standardized format of Old Norse spelling - which includes the letters þ, ð, æ, œ, ö, á, é, í, ú, ó and ý - would be used in article titles. In this case alternative Anglicizations would be listed in the article as prominently as is practical. See Höðr for an example of this in practice.

I'm soliciting opinions on this and contacted you because you're knowledgeable about languages and orthography. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Polls are evil

Polls are evil, certainly. The problem is that I've been trying to get people to discuss this for months. If you look at the archives of the talk page you'll see that I've been begging for input for months. Basically the only person willing to discuss this with me lately is Philip so we two reached a compromise. If you can show me some way forward I would be happy. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am pointing you forward by telling you to stop voting and start compromising. Ditch the vote altogether and start over by forcing people to work on one naming convention, not several alternative pages. You will most likely never reach consensus if you let people structure their own candidates by themselves and then duke it out in votes.
And I really don't think Philip is an appropriate user to build compromises with. His idea of consensus building is to push premature votes that are based on fixed-percentage majorities, often horribly small ones. Just look at his track-record of revert warring and rules lawyering at Requested moves.
Peter Isotalo 14:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I never wanted a vote on this in the first place, I only organized it once it had already started - with two users showing up with bolded capitalized exclamations of opposition and making no attempt at materially discuss the issues. And there was only one candidate convention under discussion, no-one came up with a counterproposal. In any case I've stopped the vote now.
And you tell me to build a compromise and then tell me that I shouldn't work with certain people - that doesn't sound like a very compromise-building attitude to me. :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

New lead picture(s) - without text

Hi Peter and thanks for your message and opinions! Since I believe it to be the majority view, I have changed the lead pictures for the WWI & WWII page, so that they now are without the top title text ("World War I" & "World War II" (remember to hit "refresh" in your browser). Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Good on ya! Keep those pics coming. I'm taking a vacation to prop up my studies, though. Hope to run into you sometime later.
Peter Isotalo 01:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Language/dialect

Maybe you'd like to comment on Talk:Ulster Scots language. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

I'd like to draw your attention to the above RfC, wherein I've quoted some of your conversation with Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 08:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of translations of Fuck

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 04:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice arbitration

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek phonology

Re:

This article would probably develop a lot smoother if you all just stopped caring it to death for a few weeks. Especially if you just keep on squabbling over minutiae and reverting each other all the time. And please move it back to Ancient Greek phonology pronto. Whoever fiddled with the redirect so that only admins can move it back should know better.

There has been precisely one disruptive editor on this article, User:Thrax, who has been editing against consensus for some time. He is also the one who did the bogus move. This has nothing to do with "caring to death". It has to do with Wikipedia's apparent inability to deal with users like him as long as they follow the letter of the law. --Macrakis 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Most articles related to Greece are being cared to death in my experience. Names of the Greeks is one of the best examples with its practically obscene amount of pointless footnotes and Ancient Greek phonology really is a mess even if you disregard Thrax' poor behavior. It's cluttered, unfocused and needs a serious overhaul in terms of layout. Frankly, I don't think this would be a problem if there weren't so many stubborn and often nationalist contributors editing the same article(s) at the same time. Seriously, spread out or something. Improve something more obscure or perhaps something completely unrelated to anything Greek.
And please try to keep in mind that non-aficionados might want to read one of these articles sooner or later.
Peter Isotalo 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dialects of Portuguese

I think you did a good job in the dialects section. -Pedro 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

-- "I am by now so tired of being assumed to be a chuavinist anti-foreign langauge Westerner" (User_talk:LuiKhuntek#Removed_sarcastic_incivility)

Peter: I am not assuming you are an "anti-foreign language Westerner" -- I noticed from your userpage that you have an impressive command of many languages including non-"Western" ones. I'm not sorry I stooped to sarcasm though -- it is considered an appropriate rhetorical tool in English-language cultures from what I'm told. However, I will state my points without it here and on the Naming conventions (Korean) talk page. I will preface them with the note that I agree with you on the need for English Wikipedia to be in English first and foremost. In discussions on various articles, I have consistently adovated this (e.g. Budjak, Podolia, Ash Sharqiyah Province, Warmia, Srem/Srijem, Austrian Scouts and Girl Guides).

It is rarely questioned that foreign forms of personal or geographic names should appear in encyclopedias (after the English form of course). Britannica, etc have done this for years. The problem then appears to be with foreign scripts rather than foreign languages. In the past, limitations of space and typsetting made such additions inappropriate for an encyclopedia but Wikipedia has the space and Unicode delivers the ability to easily type and read such scripts.

That the issue is still so hotly debated points to conceptual or emotional rather than pragmatic concerns. There are few heated debates over whether foreign forms in Latin script should appear in articles (e.g., Scanian (linguistics)) Yet such forms present the English reader with something little different from a foreign script. Without knowldege of relevant foreign phonology and orthography, words such as "skånska" or Cēsis is largely unrenderable.

There are no suggestions that the titles of articles be in non-Latin scripts or that articles incorporate sentences of non-Latin text. The presence of non-Latin forms is (or should be) limited to an explanatory function -- always appended to an English, transcribed, or transliterated form. Such is the case with Hangeul and Hanja in dialog boxes. These appendages neither break the flow of reading the text nor require knowledge of another script -- they merely provide important additional information.

There are affirmative reasons why hangeul, hanja, and other non-Latin scripts are an important part of a modern English encyclopedia. These derive from the problems of transliteration and the subsequent problems of rendering the transliterations. For example, it is especially difficult for words in tonal languages such as the Chinese languages to be reproduced by English speakers. Furthermore, some (e.g., J. Marshall Unger, Wm. C. Hannas) argue that East Asia's long tradition of using characters has altered languages and allowed for the greater use of homophones. Thus, even in hangeul, there are ambiguities only resolved with reference to the root hanja. Without native script examples, Wikipedia entries exist in isolation from their subjects; many have no foreign language Wiki pages. One can approach Chinese with an English rendition of "kung hei fat choi" and get blank stares all day but a 恭喜發財 on the laptop screen or sent in an e-mail will work wonders.

Although those with knowledge of foreign scripts may be few as a proportion of total English Wikipedia readers, it is likely that a greater percentage of those reading about a particular region or language have knowledge of it. Even if the encyclopedia article reader has no knowledge of foreign scripts, the hanja and hangeul examples can be cut and pasted or otherwise reproduced as references, as tools to use to consult someone who does know these scripts, or to perform internet searches. In short, foreign scripts do nothing to detract from articles and add, not trivial, but important information. One of the great draws of Wikipedia over almost all other on- or off-line sources is its abundance of native forms given for entries. It is both mysterious and shameful that anyone would want to deliberately withold this information. LuiKhuntek 08:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese phonology

Dear Peter,

I won't discuss more about European Portuguese velarization. I can't figure it out yet, but I do believe in your sources. I would like to invite you to help me rewriting Portuguese phonology article. It is needing some improvements. José San Martin 14:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll start looking it over tomorrow.
Peter Isotalo 09:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia

I think the text you wrote about Swedish Wikipedia is interesting and perhaps important. I created it as a separate page on my user space. Although GFDL per se, I will ask for its deletion if you request so. / Fred-Chess 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I just removed it because I didn't feel like there was much use in keeping it. I gave up on trying when I tried improving svenska and got E70 yelling at me without provocation yet again.
Peter Isotalo 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian postalveolars

Hi Peter,

Did you ever get clarification on Russian ш? There's an editor who insists on transcribing it as [ʃ], and won't accept either [ʂ] or [s̠].

BTW, on your question about /ɕ, ʑ/, these are the phonemes traditionally transcribed /ʃʲ, ʒʲ/. kwami 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the "ш" is still eluding me, but [ʃ] very reasonable for now. I haven't been able to find proper literature on Russian yet. I'm also wondering why that phonology of mine doesn't include those two as palatalized phonemes, though.
Peter Isotalo 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karmosin/Archive_4&oldid=1085962362"