Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 14 April 2023

Word/quotation of the moment:

Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist

(Previous quotes)

Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda? — Col. Erran Morad, Who Is America?, s01e01 yod-dropper — (when you need something that sounds like an insult) ALL keys matter — response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC 2021 The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large Lame duck à l'orange (AKA canard à l'orange) It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world. — Washington Irving, Knickerbocker's History of New York Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap. — José Saramago, Death with Interruptions / Death at Intervals It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. — as opposed to by what? Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people. — It's Happy Bunny When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don't follow them. — Slavko Janevski, 'Silence' And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization. — Stanislaw Lem, Return from the Stars The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church. — (commonly misattributed to Magellan) 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 Ecce Mono Keep Redskins White! "homosapiens are people, too!!" 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." (said in all sincerity)

Reliable pollster has exclusive on deprecated source

Recently, the deprecated source Breitbart released an exclusive survey from the well-respected pollster Meganalisis (which has been considered a reliable source and is quoted on a multitude of Misplaced Pages articles) on their website... surrounding the opinions of Venezuelans on same-sex marriage and abortion access and I'm uncertain about how I should proceed in this. It appears that these sorts of exclusives between them and Breitbart are becoming a regular thing. (I'm not entirely fluent in Spanish; I'm not sure what the protocol here is. Generally, I'd state that Breitbart links are inherently unreliable and should never be used per consensus. But the pollster who provided the data is considered to be a reliable source from my understanding, is frequently quoted for data on Venezuela on here, and is frequently cited.

Is there a general agreement on what to do in situations like this?

If a reliable source starts posting information on a deprecated source. What are editors supposed to do?

I was going to update the global poll template on same-sex marriage for Venezuela. But I'm not sure now. KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. We are expected to use common sense and not apply the rules blindly, but this is a weird situation. Can we be sure that a source like Breitbart would even reproduce the data accurately and completely? I'd ask at WP:RS, as there have been a few responses there just this month. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks for responding. @Kwamikagami:

The original post on Breitbart is

Their Twitter post on showing the data is here.

South Florida Gay News references it. But the full dataset isn't on the website - but rather on Breitbart.

Neither option seems better than the others - and referencing one of the three presents serious problems. (As well as not updating the template data to the new information)

I'll ask. KlayCax (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sitting Bull

You just edited Sitting Bull to remove a syllable-break character from the IPA rendering of his Lakota name: → . Removing the pause between a vowel and a Y-glide tends to elide them into a single syllable, when they belong in separate syllables. Removing the pause in "Bye, you kid!" would sound like "Bayou Kid!", etc. I've reverted that edit. – _•Raven  08:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Tends for who? Do you have any evidence that's a problem? The default syllabification would be , just as with any other VCV sequence. You're also marking as a single syllable. It's a bizarre transcription. — kwami (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Witness Russian and Ukrainian names like Достоевский and Зеленский — ending in -ий, which transcribes literally into English as "-iy", but is usually translated as "-y" because the sounds elide. (Cf. UK: /ˌdɒstɔɪˈɛfski/.) The Y-glide is a vowel-sound we place in a consonant's position (as in English we call the letter Y "both a vowel and a consonant"). This is not true of and . It's not a waste of a syllable-break to avoid creating confusion whether it's - or -. – _•Raven  15:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What does Russian have to do with Lakhota? And what does the IPA transcription of a language have to do with its conventional transliteration into English? If Lakhota elided the this way, then we wouldn't write the j at all. You say in English we call the letter Y "both a vowel and a consonant", but that's not true for IPA ⟨j⟩, which is just a consonant. So you have no rational reason for claiming that Iyotake is 2 syllables, and I'm reverting. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• "What does Russian have to do with Lakhota?"

What does either of them have to do with English? This is en-WP; what you call "default syllabification" would be done by English-speakers, the same ones who typically elide . It is for their use we had the syllable break as clarification. Your removal reduces the clarity of the transcription for them. That is both unnecessary to do, and counterproductive to this encyclopedia's purpose. But since you insist that might then be read as a single syllable, clearly the best solution is to mark every syllable break. Done. – _•Raven  21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the default syllabification is a universal. Not perfectly, of course, few language "universals" are, but the norm across the world is for VCV to be syllabified V.CV. The phonetic details of English apply to English, not to Lakhota, and for no other language do we do this.

Your latest appears to be an example of WP:POINT, but by now I don't expect any better. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We write Misplaced Pages to be clear to as many readers as possible — not just to those who know in advance how to syllabify words from Lakhota or other languages. We're not the only kids in class. – _•Raven  01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is why you repeatedly restore errors that others have removed. I don't think adding in purposeful errors is a good way to go, no matter what the audience. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles

There is currently a discussion that may interest you. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles proposes that the ʻokina gennerally be prohibited from article titles derived from Chinese whenever it does not adhere to the English Misplaced Pages policy to use commonly recognizable names. Plese join the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Script" in article titles

I'm sure you're well-meaning, but some people on Misplaced Pages vehemently insist on enforcing Peter Daniels' recent narrow constricted neologistic redefinition of the word "alphabet", which I really don't think is a good idea. If the "Hebrew alphabet" and "Arabic alphabet" articles are not going to change their titles, then it's rather pointless to go around changing the titles of articles on lesser-known writing systems... AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply following WP:NCWS. It's not about whether an abugida is an "alphabet". — kwami (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But you're ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. "Theban alphabet": About 32,900 Ghits. "Theban script": About 74 Ghits. – _•Raven  19:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And by COMMONNAME, both Latin script and Latin alphabet should be called "alphabet", same with Arabic script and Arabic alphabet, Bengali script and Bengali alphabet, and Cyrillic script. I left a note at wikiproject writing systems for input, which would also apply to cases like Shavian and Enochian. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You're making an excellent case that your method of distinction between "script" and "alphabet" is incompatible with the existing usage off-WP. The question is... which should govern? The real-world usage, or this idiosyncratic usage incompatible with it? I vote for the real world. In other words, a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach. It's not our job to tell the world what terms it should use, but to report what terms it does. – _•Raven  07:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's only incompatible with sources that don't bother to make the distinction, and so are too ambiguous to accept as authoritative for an encyclopedia. In this case it hardly matters, because it's not ambiguous within the context of Theban, but it would be a problem if we were to accept such usage generally. — kwami (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right: Theban is unambiguously referred to as an "alphabet" rather than as a "script" at 99.77+% of the locations Google found. This does not keep it from also being a "script", because (as I pointed out to you much earlier) "alphabet" is merely the more specific term — since alphabets, like abjads and abugidas and ideographic writing, are scripts; this is a subset/superset relationship. You just seem to have an unreasonably exclusionary definition of what an alphabet is. If you think an "alphabet" can't be used by more than one language, then indeed the modern "Latin alphabet" isn't one. But this too is by overwhelming majority considered an alphabet. So you differ from most of the world in how you define "alphabet". Too bad, but not for the world. – _•Raven  08:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You really don't bother to read what you respond to, do you? Why don't you take a look at Latin alphabet and Latin script, or any of the other examples you've been repeatedly given. — kwami (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did, and more, including: "The ISO basic Latin alphabet is an international standard (beginning with ISO/IEC 646) for a Latin-script alphabet that consists of two sets (uppercase and lowercase) of 26 letters, codified in various national and international standards and used widely in international communication." ... which, since it's international rather than national, means by your previously announced criteria that it's not an "alphabet" at all. Oh dear! But its contents are the same as the modern English alphabet (though if using it to write in Classical Latin, you wouldn't use the W)... So is that not an alphabet either? The same set of letters can't be both an alphabet and a non-alphabet, can it? Or can't it? If that one, why not Theban? – _•Raven  21:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you're still playing stupid. If you won't discuss things in good faith, stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that your criteria, if applied consistently, would declare the ISO basic Latin alphabet to be not an "alphabet" at all, is an entirely reasonable objection. Why do you assert it is "bad faith" to point that out, or to point out that you have never cited any (off-WP) Reliable Sources to declare "Theban alphabet" an "inaccurate" term? Indeed deleted reference to the RS requirement when quoting WP on the topic? – _•Raven  22:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Try reading it again: it's "an international standard for a Latin-script alphabet". It's not itself an alphabet, it's the set of letters that many Latin alphabets restrict themselves to.

Again, I don't get what's difficult to understand about e.g. Latin alphabet and Latin script. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... it's 'an international standard for a Latin-script alphabet'. It's not itself an alphabet, it's the set of letters...." — And the Misplaced Pages article Alphabet opens: "An alphabet is a standardized set of basic written graphemes (called letters) representing phonemes...." — so what you argued actually indicates that it meets the definition of an alphabet. (As does Theban, by the way.)

Otherwise a horse is not a horse, because it's really a domesticated, one-toed, hoofed mammal of the species Equus ferus caballus. – _•Raven  03:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, read Latin alphabet and Latin script until you understand the difference. You seem impervious to understanding anything that contradicts what you think you know. Playing with semantics, and taking imprecise definitions literally, does not make a good argument, it only makes it sound like you're being purposefully obtuse and arguing in bad faith. Come on, you're not stupid, stop pretending that you are. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... taking imprecise definitions literally, does not make a good argument...." — Are you saying WP's definitions are imprecise? Yet on what are you basing your claim? You have not cited a non-WP RS to call Theban non-alphabetic. – _•Raven  03:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

All definitions are imprecise. Taking them literally to the point of being obtuse will not score you any points. Anyway, it's obvious that you're not here to engage in an honest discussion, so you're a waste of my time. I'm not investing more good time after bad, so keep off unless you have something constructive or intelligent to say. — kwami (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're not going to cite any reliable (off-Misplaced Pages) source that Theban alphabet is inaccurate, is that right? – _•Raven  10:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not going to pander to you playing stupid. This is matter of implementing our naming guidelines, or changing them if that's what people decide, as you well know. So, again, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Spanish Language article

Hello,

I am sending you this message to let you know you are wrong with your last edition in the articule "Spanish language". Spanish is official in Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia. I am from Peru, and I can say that without any doubt. Please, I will ask you to refrain from deleting the edition that shows the map correctly. You do not have, nor will you ever have proof that the Spanish language is coofficial in those countries, because it is not. I recommend you to check the political constitution of those countries so that you can inform yourself a little more. I have uploaded again my image with the updated map, if you want to improve it, you have the doors open. But I am going to ask you not to revert the edition because you would be putting incorrect information again. Best regards LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's official in Peru. No-one said otherwise. As for it being co-official, even Spanish WP says as much, citing Article 48 of the Peruvian constitution. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Then why are you still insisting to put it in the map as co-official? What is the definition of coofficial for you? You are contradicting yourself. Article 48 of the constitution of Peru is clear: Spanish (or Castillian) is the OFFICIAL language. Quechua an Aymara are Official as well in the regions where most of the people speak it. I do not understand why you are still insisting to keep it was "Cooficial".--LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If Spanish, Quechua and Aymara are all official, then they're official together. That's what "co-official" means.

The map distinguishes countries where Spanish is the sole official language, such as Argentina, and ones where it is one of several official languages, such as Bolivia. If Peru is not in the latter group, then the map needs to be corrected.

If you think I'm wrong, please take it to the talk page rather than edit-warring. Also, if you're correct, then the map needs to be corrected rather than just replaced, because many WP's use it. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Quechua and Aymara are official ONLY in some regions where most of the population speak it, and those regiones are a few. Something similar happens in Bolivia and Paraguay. But the official language is Spanish. I still do not understand your logic that if all of them were official, then all of them are Coofficials. Does not make sense to me. But anyway, accussing me as a edit warrior was not okay since I am just improving the article. I already reported the case and I also texted in the Talk page of the article. If more WP´s disagree with me, I will stop with this case. --LordEdurod97 (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

PD: Also, according to your logic, then the colour in Spain is also incorrect, since Spanish (Castillian) is not the only official language in Spain, there is also Aranese, Basque, Catalan, Galician, among others. Which are also official in the regions where most people speak them.--LordEdurod97 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're correct that Spain appears to be a similar situation. It's possible that it should be treated like Peru, but also that we should only count countries were multiple languages are official at the national level. Anyway, I would suggest starting a WP:request for comment on the talk page. It's not just this one article that's affected. — kwami (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I started the RfC. It's not a matter of what's "correct", but of what is useful to the reader. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Cross of Saint Peter

The image you substituted has big blank margins. That may be suitable for a userbox, but not so much for an image thumbnail in an article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Looks a bit odd with no margin at all, though. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.) – .Raven  13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)