Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 7 August 2015

Word/quotation of the moment:

Previous:

In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. (from the WP article Nancy Dorian)

Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. (from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown)

• Keep Redskins White!
• "homosapiens are people, too!!"
• Spaghetti Weevil (also) a sprig of spaghetti
• "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
• awkwardnessful
• anti–zombie-fungus fungus
• "Only an evil person would eat baby soup."

On Kalenjin/Nandi-Markweta

Hi Kwamikagami. I know Kalenjin is NOT a single language and I never wrote this- instead I wrote that it is a macrolanguage that comprises of nine dialects of varying degrees of mutual intelligibility (note: this means some of them might not even be mutually intelligiible, which I DID say in the "varieties" section, where I presented the results of a study on this - and I included it in the references) and I added a hyperlink to the word macrolanguage. Macrolanguage is a technical term used by ethnologue, it is not a term I invented. There is even a wikipedia article on what macrolanguage codes mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/ISO_639_macrolanguage). If you search for "Kalenjin language" in Ethnologue, the following comes up: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/kln. This, as you can see, includes the 9 dialects that I had in my wikipedia article, and which you removed. By the way, all this information is from the (2015) edition while in your version you cite the (2013) edition of Ethnologue. So, please read those before you write that other people write "nonsense" in your review summaries...

So, from reading Ethnologue, Glottolog, Toweett (1979) and Creider (1989), my understanding is that "Kalenjin languages" (plural) is a genetic classification, which includes the languages of Tanzania, whereas "Kalenjin language" is the name given to the Kenyan dialects only. Since there is already an article on wikipedia on "Kalenjin languages" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Kalenjin_languages), and since in Kenya "Kalenjin language" is seen as a single language (as you yourself wrote in the introduction to the article, it is the use of this term that politically unified the Kalenjin peoples), I thought it was appropriate to include in the article what people mean when they refer to Kalenjin as a single language.

Moreover, you write Nandi is the principal dialect, which is just wrong, since Kipsigis has almost twice as many speakers (see ethnologue if you don't believe me). And you do include Kipsigis in your varieties, so it's not that you think it's not part of "Nandi-Markweta" (which is just an internal genetic subdivision of Kalenjin languages, on which people do not agree. for example, glottolog and ethnologue have a different internal classification of Kalenjin as a branch).

Also, you say that Kalenjin people make up 18% of the population (but you don't have a reference for it). According to the wikipedia page on Kalenjin people, they make up 12% of the population, but I didn't have time to verify it, so I just deleted that part, since I thought it was not essential.

You also say that "The Kenyan conception of Kalenjin includes Kipsigis and Terik but not Markweta, ". I don't know where you got this from since there is no reference but 1) the wikipedia page on Kalenjin peoples does include Markweta, 2) my best friend is a Kipsigis who lives in Kenya and told me that the Markweta (whom they call Marakwet in Kenya) are Kalenjin. I know number (2) is not the best evidence for you, but give me your evidence for writing what you wrote. Also, wikipedia has an article on Marakwet people (https://en.wikipedia.org/Marakwet_people) and says they are Kalenjin.

As for moving the page, "Kalenjin language" actually redirects you to this page, and when I tried to move it I got the message that this page already exists (probably because of the redirect link? I have never moved a page before so I don't know the details).

In sum, since in Kenya "Kalenjin language" refers to 9 very specific dialects/languages, and ethnologue recognizes that and classifies this as a macrolanguage (you like it or not, ethnologgue does), and since there is another page anyway about the GENETIC term "Kalenjin languages", I thought it was appropriate to modify the article in the way I did. To make it clear, my main objective was to include the grammatical features of these languages, and I did my best given the knowledge I have, to present facts from different dialects (so I included Kipsigis, Nandi, and Tugen). I did not want to include this information say in the article about Nandi (which would have been easier because I would have avoided these lengthy discussions about sth that to me doesn't seem controversial given the sources I have cited) is that despite what you think, "Kalenjin language" is used a lot in linguistics to refer to the Kenyan dialects (I am a professional linguist, who has spent quite a lot of time lately reading about and studying this language), and it is more likely for a student interested in the grammatical structure of this language to look up this term instead of Nandi. Moreover, some of the dialects are so close that the general sketch of the grammar (since I only included a very general sketch) applies to all of them.

I am a linguist, whose only goal was to facilitate the access to knowledge about the dialects known as the Kalenjin language. I have given my sources for all my claims (and btw these sources were there in my edits, I don't think such a lengthy response to you should be necessary), unlike some of your claims in the relevant parts (eg. Markweta, or Nandi being the principal dialect...). So I would greatly appreciate it if you restored my edits. ...Maria.kouneli (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Maria.kouneli: okay, a couple of points.

• First, "macrolanguage" is not a linguistic term, and should be avoided. It's only used for organizing ISO codes, which is largely irrelevant to most WP articles. The relevant link would be to dialect continuum, assuming that's applicable.
• Nandi might have been called the "principal" dialect because it's the most important socially, or the best studied, I don't know. No problem with you removing that. However, if there is a prestige dialect of Kalenjin, that should be mentioned.
• I'll take your word that Markweta is considered Kalenjin by speakers (i.e., that speakers are ethnically Kalenjin), but that is probably irrelevant (see below).
• It's inappropriate to say the article is about "Nandi-Markweta" and then talk about "Kalenjin" -- the article title should reflect what the article is about. Since you appear to know what you're doing, and Kalenjin is perhaps borderline between being a language and being a small family, would you prefer it to be moved to "Kalenjin language" (singular), as you suggested? Easy enough, though it might take a few days to get the redirect out of the way. If we did that, then most of the individual articles (such as Naandi language) should probably be deleted and turned into redirects to Kalenjin, with their ISO codes and populations summarized in the infobox there. Maybe one or two would be worth keeping separate, unless you feel you can adequately merge their info into the Kalenjin article. We don't need a separate article for every ISO code -- we don't follow ISO in other language articles.
• The question then is whether to follow Distefano (1985), the source used by Glottolog, in excluding Markweta from Kalenjin proper. Whether it's conceived of as Kalenjin by speakers is irrelevant: IMO if our sources state that Kalenjin and Markweta do not form a valid clade, then we should not lump them together. Since I don't recall Markweta examples in your grammatical description, that shouldn't be a problem. If we do that, then after moving we should turn Nandi-Markweta into a redirect to "Kalenjin languages" (plural) after moving the article to Kalenjin singular. If you think you have a better or more up-to-date classification than the one Glottolog uses, we could use that instead. We should also modify Kalenjin-plural to reflect whichever classification we go with.
• Also, since sources state that Kipsigis is more distant that the other varieties are to each other, it should perhaps also be kept out of Kalenjin proper. That would require some modification of your edits. I don't know how intelligible it is -- if intelligibility is low, we should probably follow our sources in excluding it; if intelligibility is good, then I see no problem including it.

Oh, and this discussion should probably be copied to the article talk page for future reference. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Copying this over. Please continue this discussion there if you get my email. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Planemos category

The Planemos category and the Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium category are separate categories. Planemos is for non-planets and non-dwarf planets, as well as planets outside our solar system. The hydrostatic equilibrium category is for all Solar System objects, including planets, in hydrostatic equilibrium. They are separate categories. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not. Planets have planetary mass and are therefore planemos. Haven't we already had this conversation? The only difference between the categories is that one is restricted to the Solar System, but since all known extrasolar substellar objects are planemos, that's a trivial difference already solved by exoplanet being under planet, which is under planemo.

There's also the contradiction in categorizing 'possible' DPs as being in HE, when if that were true they would simply be DPs. If they're only possibly DPs, they're only possibly in HE. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellalan (monarch)

Hello admin, as per recent closure of move discussion you decided to move the page to Elara. Is it really possible when there is hardly any clear consensus regarding move. Most of people opposed move, I mean what we look for in such discussion? quantity or quality? I think your decision is really controversial, still I have no more concern regarding this issue. But other people can object the move. I think result should have been "no clear consensus", because we see no consensus for moving the page. Thank you. --Human3015  21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy. We don't decide these things by a vote. The comments in the discussion of that malformed request centered around nationalism and ethnicity, which are irrelevant and which I therefor disregarded. (Much of the opposition was over the lack of the dab "(monarch)", which was fixed.) What is important is what name the king goes by in English reliable sources. AFAICT, that is "Elara" by a large margin. If you wish to contest my decision, please do so per WP naming policy by showing that English RS's prefer "Ellalan" over "Elara". — kwami (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Can you review move discussion at Talk:Vithoba? --Human3015  21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's got another day to run (I've been clearing up the backlog), and you might not like my decision! I'll comment on what I've found so far. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (album)

I think you are mistaken. The base name goes to the dabpage. Both the album and the song are equally significant and popular. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The base name currently does link to the dab page. Perhaps the dab page should be moved, but there were reasonable objections to doing that in the RfM. We might want the song there with a hatnote to the dab page. The move request was backlogged, so we might need a separate discussion for the dab page. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You're no longer an administrator, but I don't know how you still have to do the rollback or something like that. The album was just as popular as the song, and the same for the other way around. I'm going to propose making the song a primary topic in talk page if you insist. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I could move them by making a request to get the current page out of the way. I don't insist either way: either the dab page or the song could be at the primary name. I would favor the latter as more semantically justified (the album is named for the song), but it may be that WP precedent favors the former. I'd have to see the data.

I think that we could use some guidance at WP:AT for albums named after songs. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, how about rewriting closing rationale as "no consensus for the song as primary, but no prejudice to proposing that the song be the primary topic." Some voters convince a closer not to make the song primary. --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't propose making the song primary, so that would be an odd thing to say. I think it's clear that I would favor such a move, so I don't see how my closure could be used to oppose it. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've done it now (separately), so the song won't take over the base title yet. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving of Ellalan (monarch)

Hi Kwami,

You closed this discussion as "moved" but the page wasn't moved. I'm not sure if it was an oversight, technical limitation, or you meant "not moved", but regardless just a heads up. Wugapodes (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The move is pending admin revocation of the page protection. Might take a bit. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Also I read above and want to thank you for working on the backlog. It's a thankless job, but something that needs help with. Have a barnstar for your work.

		The Original Barnstar
		For working to help close RfCs and reduce the backlog. Wugapodes (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah, I've just about had it for the day. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate move

Your move of Gangsta. to Gangsta (manga) was extremely inappropriate: per WP:RMNAC, for a non-admin to move a page, consensus must be clear, which it was not. Also, while the relevant policies are currently the subject of a discussion, there is currently nothing forbidding the use of a period as disambiguation. I suggest you either revert your move or ask someone who can to do so. Your close essentially amounts to a WP:SUPERVOTE. Also, you failed to move the talk page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear: WP guidelines support the move. There is plenty of precedent and supporting detail in the guidelines. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the comment about the Talk page. Gangsta. was moved, but there is something in the way of the Talk:Gangsta. move. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't see a comment. Requested the target talk page be moved out of the way. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the above remark that says "you failed to move the talk page." It sounds like you're aware of the issue and have some plan to fix it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah – now I see it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which guidelines do you feel support your move? It was also a poor decision to move the page when a) there was no clear consensus and b) supporters were split between Gangsta (manga) and Gangsta. (manga). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, which guidelines override WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SMALLDETAILS to support your move? Depending on your answer (or lack thereof) I may consider opening a move review. I hope you don't mind. (By the way, ignore my peremptory tone in my first comment. I was just wrapping up my editing for the day when I saw your close, and was in a hurry to reply.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't be offended if you open a move review. The article is currently being discussed in a debate on SMALLDETAILS at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Using_a_._to_distinguish_an_article.

COMMONNAME does not apply to style: whether a name is capitalized or italic or whatever is a separate issue, covered i.a. by the MOS. (People keep claiming it does apply, but consensus has long been that it does not, and there are statements to that effect somewhere in our guidelines.) As for SMALLDETAILS, I found several opinions that a period is not an adequate dab, and all similar articles I could find omit the period from the article name. I was therefore going on precedent. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Elara

So ... Ellalan was moved, and then moved back. Can you explain what is going on? Ogress _smash! 04:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't moved back. I couldn't move it in the first place because it was move-protected. (I asked you your input while the move was pending.) That was resolved and I moved it just a minute ago. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The vote was opposed and you moved it anyway. Ogress _smash! 06:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP isn't a democracy. The oppose votes were for reasons of nationalism, which are irrelevant. I asked you about your comments, because you were one of the few people who made relevant comments, but you couldn't remember why you made them, and I couldn't replicate your findings. So I went by COMMONNAME, which is "Elara", and instructed voters who disagree to demonstrate that I got the common name wrong, rather than making irrelevant claims over which nationality should get precedence. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian state election articles

Hi Kwami. Could I ask you to review your closes of these articles? You are correct identifying that there are plenty of "Results of" articles, but they only exist as a child article of the main election article (the example cited in the RM of Results of the 2013 Malaysian general election by parliamentary constituency is a child of Malaysian general election, 2013). If the state articles are moved to the proposed titles, it creates a child article without a parent. As I stated in my comments, the moves are acceptable as long as a parent is created. Cheers, Number 57 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to ask an admin who is familiar with election articles to review my close. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am an admin who is familiar with election articles, hence raising the concerns about your close not being in lin e with normal practice. Cheers, Number 57 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellalan

Ah, I see you were able to move it after all. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Śuṅga Empire

Hi. Shouldn't Talk:Śuṅga Empire also be moved to Talk:Shunga Empire? Thank you. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Awaiting clearance. — kwami (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCLANG

I started a new discussion to delete all that nonsense about "primary meaning/topic" here. --Taivo (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ejective consonant

Ejective consonant now contains characters in PUA. What should we do about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Subbed. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello Kwami, and thanks for your contributions. A couple of general editing suggestions for you to consider:

• Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
• Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric 19:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries: long-standing bad habit. Sometimes I do better.

Multiple edits: WP fails at upload too often (maybe 1 time in 2 or 3, more often for long edits) for that to be practical. It's extremely frustrating to lose a lot of work, and I often won't bother to repeat it. I solve that by making incremental edits, so that I don't mind repeating them when the edit gets lost. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Copying your edit to the clipboard before saving/previewing solves this issue. If WP screws up, you simply paste your edit. Peter238 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm editing more than one article at a time, as I frequently am. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a high upload failure rate. I have not experienced that--I wonder what's causing it. Do you always edit using the same connection? Not my area of expertise, but I'm wondering if it's a stability issue with your internet connection. Eric 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that it's a particular connection. Other users have complained about this too. Seems to have started this year. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it a red banner at top that says "loss of session data"? I get that a lot, but don't lose my edits; I just have to hit save a second time. If not then this isn't a problem I've seen before. Wugapodes (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Usually I can save, but not always. And sometimes I hit 'save' and move on to the next tab, not noticing that the save didn't go through. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Next time it happens look through the box again to see if your edits are still there and try saving again. It works for me when I get that. I don't know how to stop it from appearing, but it's a workaround of sorts. Wugapodes (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my problem is that I close the tab or backtrack and go in a different direction so that I can't get back to where the edit would be. Sometimes I don't notice until later when I find my edit is missing and I'm not in the page history. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Greyshirt

Hello - would you please explain your finding of consensus at Talk:Greyshirt_(comics)#Requested_move_20_July_2015. 4-3 seems a bit close for consensus where there are policy arguments on both sides, especially for a non-admin close. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A minor comic-book character vs a historical Nazi party -- not the primary use. But feel free to reopen the discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but I don't think it reflects the consensus (or lack) of the discussion. As to reopening, that's a bit tricky now that the post-close moves have been made. If you would un-close the discussion and leave a note, that would seem to be the best way forward, unless you have a better suggestion. Dohn joe (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Though WP is not a democracy, the vote was 5:2 (or maybe 4½:2½). That seems a reasonable consensus to me, and the arguments were reasonable. But I'm not an admin; there's no problem with you reopening the discussion. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)