Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fabartus (talk | contribs) at 02:33, 7 April 2017 (→Thanks for carrying the ball: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

.tmp up to Aug 2016 Sep–Dec 2016 2017 (Jan–June, July–Dec) 2018 (Jan–June, July–Dec) 2019 (Jan–June, July–Dec) 2020 (Jan–June, July–Dec) 2021 (Jan–Dec) 2022 (Jan–Apr)

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!

Sanskrit "ph" is more like fork than pork

Hi,

I would like to know the justification behind  reverting my edit.  "ph" to be like "fork" was reverted back to "pork". Isn't "pork" just "p" with more emphasis? My mother tongue is Marathi which has both the sounds and I have been in the U.S. for many years and my impression how pork is spoken is closer to "p" than "ph".Jkulkarni (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I have studied some Sanskrit in High School and to me the sound "ph" in phalam (fruit) had always sounded more like the English 'f' sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkulkarni (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The more emphasis that you observe in the p of "pork" in English is in fact aspiration (see English_phonology#Obstruents). And it's precisely this aspiration that distinguished Sanskrit ph from p. In English this aspiration is absent if the phoneme is preceded by s, hence Sanskrit p is approximated, in that article, to the sound of p in "spin". The Sanskrit pronunciation taught in high schools today isn't a particularly reliable source for how Classical Sanskrit was pronounced: you'll find that people who've been to other schools (especially in other parts of the country) pronounce things differently from the way you're used to. The variation is due to either regional traditions or the effect of a speaker's first language. I don't know how it is in Marathi, but neighbouring Gujarati is known for pronouncing the aspirates (esp. ph) as fricatives (f in this case) and that's a pretty common sound change anyway. If you're interested to read more about the phonetics of Sanskrit, there's a decent body of literature out there, but Allen's book (given in the bibliography) would be a good starting point. – Uanfala (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horizontal and vertical, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

regarding your edits in punjabi language article

mr Uanfala why you are making edits in article Punjabi language without knowing facts about languages complex in Punjab region? you have made edit writing "rm irrelevant and sloppily copied text from Saraiki dialect)" what problem you have? do not you know many articles on wikipedia are interrelated and in this article we have write about seraiki to clear the facts.Earliar article was showing Punjabi and its relation with other languages/dialects but you just torted. 116.202.252.189 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If you "know the facts" feel welcome to contribute your knowledge, but please bear in mind that you'll need to support that with sources. And each particular fact needs to actually be in the sources given. What I remember removing from that article was 1) several paragraphs lifted from another article; 2) a confused map, and 3) a paragraph of personal reflections. None of these things belonged there. If you find a way to show Punjabi's "relation with other languages/dialects" in a way that is concise, encyclopedic and backed up by sources, by all means do. – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that you've restored a whole lot more of the problematic content I had previously removed. Why each of the removed bits is problematic – that's explained in the edit summaries that you can see next to each edit in the article's history. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

about article Punjabi language

It should be clear that punjabi is spoken in India and Pakistan means two different socio-cultural-political environments,mr UNFALA trying to mix these two different conditions, 1 In article readers have right to know about Dogri and Seraiki in detail to know what developments took in history and i have written with sources.

2 MR Unfala why you want delete map here,it clears the section 'frontier dialects' issue'.please go through map ,it show you historical punjab and nothing negative written about claims or constitutional provisions about Dogri and Seraiki.then why you deleting facts based on souurces.

3 About video :- video is shoot in India ,where Bahawlpuri or Multani people identify yhem as Punjabi, in video the girl herself calling BAHAWALPURI THEN HOW MR UNFALA you can link this video only with seraiki?

please understand Punjabi regarding India and Pakistani perspectives based on government facts.Shemaroo (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There really is no need to paste the same comment on more than one talk page. I've replied at Talk:Punjabi language. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindustani language

You should probably start a discussion about the dialects part of the infobox on the talk page, given how much reverting is going on. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think if there's any problem anywhere, it's in the article's lede, which could probably be more explicit about the extent of the meaning of "Hindustani". – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem I think is that it isn't clear to me whether the article scopes over (or ough to scope over) all Hindi-Urdu dialects (including Dakhni, Awadhi, etc.) or just the Khariboli form. That needs to be resolved first before the dialects parts, but it's not high on my list of worries. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, isn't Hindi belt the article that covers all the Hindi "dialects"? At any rate, I can't recall ever seeing "Hindustani" used with any such broad meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Right but Hindi belt doesn't cover the Hindi-Urdu dialects, which would include Dakhni. And you're right, it isn't, but there was a lot of discussion about this on the talk, and see here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything relevant in the RM, but I guess I'll have to look at the other talk page discussions. At any rate, if you'd like to change the status quo and add any dialects to the infobox, feel free to do so, provided you've got sources that list them as dialects of Hindustani (rather than Hindi). – Uanfala (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at articles in this area (like Bihari languages or Central Zone (Hindi)) I see that they're in a horrible mess and it seems this is due edits from the last couple of months. Shortage of watchers, I guess. – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Languages

Hi Uanfala,

I'm unsure as to why you reverted the edit made by another user moving Awadhi Language page into Awadhi Dialect. The Governement of India states that Awadhi is in fact a dialect of Hindi, and as a Awadhi and Bhojpuri speaker I can tell you both are. Also, if you need help with the Bihari languages and Central Zone (Hindi) pages I'd be happy to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigNasty (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Content on wikipedia should be backed up by reliable sources, and native speaker intuitions aren't that (especially if, as happens in the case of both Awadhi and Bhojpuri, they radically differ across different speakers). Of course, if you know these languages, it means that you're in a very good position to make meaningful use of the available literature and to contribute to these articles. As for the government's position – well, I'm not aware of governments being in the business of authoring sociolinguistics papers, and any implied classifications that they use for census and other purposes, though of course relevant, can't be used by themselves unless they're filtered through secondary sources, or at the very least balanced against such sources.

If you'd like to change an article's long-standing title, the way to do it is via a requested move discussion. With Awadhi there is some chance you might be able to have it renamed. – Uanfala (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As a fairly new contributor what would you suggest doing in a situation such as this. Many people including myself strongly have been led to believe that these are dialects rather than sole languages, whether they be native speakers or have read it online. Regarding the topic of whether what the Census of India states, that is a reliable source on the matter of determining whether Bhojpuri, Awadhi etc should be classified as dialects opposed to languages, and they have the position to determine sociolinguistic papers as they know the circumstances. For instance, Indians who filled out the census noted which language they spoke, and the majority of these "Hindi Belt" citizens wrote Hindi opposed to writing these individual dialects such as Awadhi, Bhojpuri etc. BigNasty (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What I would suggest doing in a situation such as this? Reading the scholarly literature. Just read the literature. As for census data, language questions are generally one of the least straightforward ones, and in the case of most of Northern India they are notoriously unreliable. If you'd like to make meaningful use of census data, I suggest reading Khubchandani. – Uanfala (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed that you removed the Bihari languages group from the Central Zone (Hindi) page, and I searched the internet for a reliable source and found a case study focused upon a dialect features, which they then primarily write about the Hindi languages. I have re-inserted the Bihari languages, but if you think this is not a justifiable source please let me know here. BigNasty (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The book (pp. 16–17) lists Bhojpuri as a dialect of "Hindi (in the broad sense)". It doesn't assign it to any of the genetic/areal "zones", and in fact asserts that "Hindi" covers languages from several of these. Now, in order to include Bhojpuri in the list of languages at Central Zone (Hindi), you need a source that says that Bhojpuri is from the Central Zone. There might be such sources (if you want to look for them, Masica's 1991 "The Indo-Aryan languages" has a decent appendix on the various classifications and you might get pointers to relevant literature from there). But you're also bound to find sources that assign it to the Eastern zone (in fact, you already have two tertiary ones linked from the infobox of Bhojpuri language), so you'll have to find a way of representing all views. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The intention of the Central Zone page was to create a page to group all the Hindi languages together. I'm certain it's not as a geographic zone, as you will see on the talk page a user opted to have the page re-titled as Central Zone(Hindi) opposed to Hindi Languages.

Well, as it stands now, the article with its present title and its present content is about the Central Zone. The article about all the Hindi languages is another one – Hindi belt. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the term Bihari might be misleading as well. The Bhojpuri dialect is closer to Awadhi over Magahi, and that is why many consider it to be a dialect of Hindi as well. I think maybe a section should be created in the talk pages to clear this up, as most people making decisions over these matters are, one not speakers of the dialects and two, have been mislead by reading information that doesn't justify.BigNasty (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Enough

Uanfala, BrownHairedGirl, we're going to sit down and have a nice chat about this nonsense with Category: Wikipedians with no red-linked categories on their talk page. I know the RFC about whether or not you're "allowed" to have redlinks user categories and all that malarky is still raging on in full strength, but I've watched this category be created/deleted a ridiculous number of times and it's getting annoying. I don't care about the RFC, because as far as I can tell we three are the only ones who care about this stupid cat. So, just between us - can we come to some sort of compromise?

Uanfala, I know you like being idiosyncratic, but Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page exists and seems to be the one "acceptable" redlinked cat. Would you be okay with using that? Primefac (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: as discussed at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:Wikipedians_in_red-linked_categories, there seems for now to be agreement to keep Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page.

I have also discussed this at great length with Uanfala at Category_talk:Wikipedians_without_red-linked_categories_on_their_user_talkpage. There has be some point at which we stop saying "OK, keep just one more redlinked" usercat, or Special:WantedCategories will start to fillupn again. It wasn't that great a joke to start with, and now that most of the redlinked categs are gone, Category:Wikipedians with no red-linked categories on their talk page is being ironic about something which has passed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This category is one of the two instances where the meaning of the category is depended on its non-existence (the other instance is represented by Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page and there's strong consensus against recreating these two). Although I do wish BrownHairedGirl wouldn't create the page of each new incarnation of this category (thus forcing the category to be renamed), I'm ready to cease from tagging these category pages for deletion if this causes inconvenience, but I'm not willing to carry on with this discussion, as I don't see the point of reiterating on a smaller scale that RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: there were many more such categories whose meaning depended on being redlinked, but apart from the two above, they have all been dealt with one way or another.
It's time to draw the line on the "just one more redlink" approach, and since Uanfala is utterly unconcerned about the impact their "joke" has on those editors who are doing encyclopedic maintenance, there is little more to be said ... other than to note again that Uanfala is intentionally, repeatedly disrupting a maintenance task, in the full knowledge that they are doing so. That smacks heavily of WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not your personal achievement board

Hi Uanfala, I'm responding to your comment regarding my "lack of experience" deleting Babel (magazine), which, clearly, shows no signs of importance whatsoever. Your edits count is valuable for community and I'm not denying that, but you don't have to take personally obvious issues. You don't have to remove my edits just because you think that you are "more experienced" than anybody else, and you want to show off. Secondly, "ping" functionality was created with the intend to use it, so I do. It's not up to you to decide when or who is allowed or should use it. If you don't like to be "pinged" it's your personal choice. I'm really surprised with your pompous comments and behaviour. Anyways, I added AfD so the community can decide. Good luck Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded patronising. An article about a magazine can show "no signs of importance" but that doesn't make it eligible for deletion as spam. As for the pings, I don't mind receiving them. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Chris Cottrell (American Basketball Coach)

Greetings. You recently declined a speedy deletion of this template, because you did not believe it to be a template that is an unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. Please can you explain, in detail, which established policy you feel this template represents correctly? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A template doesn't need to somehow represent policy in order to exist. Most templates don't, at least not in any conceivable direct way. But that's the wrong question. A template is eligible for deletion per WP:T2 if it is a misrepresentation of policy. Being a misrepresentation of something is a very different condition from that of not being a representation of this something.

Anyway, the criterion's own documentation explains that in a better (and briefer) way than I had.

As for that particular "template", that's not a template at all. It's an article in the wrong namespace. WP:A7 might apply, but it's generally not a good idea to hurry tagging with A7 a bare minute after the article was started. Give the creator some chance to expand that. – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I understand that WP:T2 is widely misused to delete just anything that happens to have been created in the template namespace. But this makes pages ending up deleted for the wrong reasons, and users are left with talk page notices which effectively accuse them (falsely) of policy misrepresentation, and this leaves newbies with the impression of wikipedia as an irrational, Kafkaesque place. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a particularly inaccurate impression, now that I come to think of it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The largest integer that has an entry on Misplaced Pages listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The largest integer that has an entry on Misplaced Pages. Since you had some involvement with the The largest integer that has an entry on Misplaced Pages redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION 04:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Translation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Translation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying the ball

Really appreciate your saving graces for what I find to be a very useful tool template. // FrankB 02:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)