User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 58

Hindi
Hey Angr,

I'm unclear on the history of "Hindi", and thought you might know.

My impression is that, prior to the British, the Nagari script was used for Hindu standards such as Braj Bhasha, and that the only written form of Delhi dialect was Urdu, and that only in the Persian script. (I'm not sure if Hindustani was an exact synonym of Urdu, or if it included Braj as well, or maybe even Awadhi.)

Was it then the British who introduced a new register of Urdu, written in Nagari, which became Modern Standard Hindi? Or was that a prior or postcolonial development? If Delhi/Khariboli was only written in Persian, which lects was Nagari used for before the British? — kwami (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know absolutely nothing about it. +Angr 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA
Hey Angr,

could you please stop reverting the page 2010 FIFA World Cup to the version of CinchBug. It appears to me that the correct player in the final is the winner of the match 61 not 60. Fabian Hassler (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, should be right now. It looked like someone was saying Germany's next match would be against the winners of match 61, when it's actually the winners of match 60. +Angr 16:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Anglish
G'day. Speaking of terms that only exist on Wikipedia, what do you think of the article "Anglish"? I cannot find this term anywhere else except for a couple of internet hobby groups. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the topic of the various attempts over the centuries to purge English of its Romance vocabulary is worth having an article on, but we really need to find a name that someone didn't just make up for Wikipedia. +Angr 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Ander-Saxon.—Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

42
Happy Birthday!

News from Lausanne is, there is a baby who could have chosen her dad's birthday or yours to be born, but is keeping her own time and will emerge sometime within the next week or so.

Hope all is well on your end...
 * Happy day after your birthday! News from Berlin is my SO is moving out and divorce is looming on the horizon. I've had better birthdays. +Angr 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Croatian grammar
Hi Angr,

After I merged this to Serbian and Croatian grammar, after months of discussion, I forgot to protect the redirect. Now an edit war has started up. Placed a RfPP, but if that doesn't go anywhere, would you mind protecting the rd? — kwami (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was off-wiki for a few days. You seem by now to have accepted that it's not going to remain a redirect. +Angr 09:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really care whether it's a redirect, as long as it isn't a content fork. But a non-forked article does not seem to be acceptable either, so I'll go back to redirecting it. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Angr. Please, don't revert, as you did here. User Kwamikagami told you wrong information. He made no discussion. He avoided the discussion. He thinks that he knows Croatian language better than its maternal speakers. Speakers who had that language as school subject for 12 years and that have been exposed to that language whole their lives, unlike Kwamikagami, who doesn't speak Croatian, who read no school textbook in Croatian, who hasn't written a single school task in Croatian, who never read Croatian newspapers, magazines, literature, who never heard Croatian language. Thank you in advance. Kubura (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is obvious that "months" of discussion gained no clear consensus, unfortunately user Kwamikagami here is not objective, do not answers to questions or show any respect to facts and references. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Käthe Kollwitz
Just curious -- when the section has "World War II" in the title and the sentence speaks about being "killed in action" in 1942, where was the surprise to be linked to World War II? Doesn't "killed in action" primarily mean to be killed in war and the date indicate World War II? Marrante (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The surprise is that when you see the words "killed in action" linked, you expect the link to take to an article on being killed in action, not an article about the war. +Angr 13:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just figured that out, but you answered too quickly. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to speak to an administrator to correct the main page. See the (currently) second listing in the news section, "The FIFA World Cup concludes with Spain defeating the Netherlands 1–0 in extra time (match ball pictured)." The word "defeats" has an unexpected link. Marrante (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

North Wind & Sun
Hi, Angr, I notice you loathe trivia as much as I do and deleted some from "The North Wind and the Sun" article. Obviously we think along the same lines as editors. I'm rather more rigorous about keeping articles on topic. This one is clearly about the fable, not phonetics, which is why I retained the text about the use to which the fable is put but deleted the transcript. If you look at the Discussion on this item, you'll see that Kjoonlee defends items in it in very technical language. My point would be that this matter belongs better in an article on Phonetics. Added to which, I think the unsourced statement in the linguistics section is based on a misunderstanding (read the reference I give and you'll see that the speaker's own retelling of the tale, not the literary version, is used in this case). So I was sorry to see you reverting my deletion and thought I'd discuss the matter with you rather than start an edit war. It's in the spirit of the fable's moral too!! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look through the history, you'll see that I created the article and put the transcription in myself on the very first day. The fable is important in its own right, no doubt, but it is also important for being the text used by phoneticians to illustrate languages with. This usage is the only reason many people have ever even heard of this fable. (I for one certainly would never have heard of the fable if it weren't used as the text sample for every language illustrated in the Handbook of the IPA.) You may notice on the talk page that the article is tagged as being part of WikiProject Phonetics, among others. The IPA transcription is by no means "trivia", and including it makes the article better, not worse, as it shows what the fable is notable for. +Angr 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspected you were responsible for the Phonetics section. Was it you too who added the linguistics sections with its claim that the literary text you quote is 'natural' language? I don't believe you can find a citation to support this and it ought therefore to be deleted.

Much of your defence for keeping the transcripts is subjective POV. Retaining them makes the second telling of the story necessary, which is added evidence for an inadmissable duality of subject. I certainly agree that the fable's connection with the IPA's work is interesting and mention of that should be included; I never argued otherwise. Transcription of technical data, however, is intrusive and belongs in a seperate article with a focus on that subject. I am therefore proposing that you create such an article, this time with proper citations, and provide a link to this article, which should remain focused on the fable in general.

If we can't agree on what is in essence a discussion of sub-editing, I'd be happy for the matter to be taken to arbitration. It would be interesting to learn the opinion of others. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Inadmissible duality of subject"? What on earth are you talking about? There's plenty of room in the article to discuss both its significance as a fable and its significance as a linguistic comparison and IPA example tool. The one does not detract from the other. I don't think I'm the one who added the bit about its being natural language, but at any rate, the point is just that it's more natural than the Lord's Prayer. +Angr 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

POV edit
Your edit here is blatantly POV. I was wondering if you could try to further explain your edit other than 'Somaliland is part of Somalia', which is your opinion. Outback the koala (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that Somaliland is part of Somalia is a simple geographical fact. Somaliland's independence is not recognized by any state or international organization, and treating it like an independent country puts undue weight on a minority POV. +Angr 19:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it is not undue weight for Wikipedia to be neutral between the opinions of both states. While Somaliland is an unrecognised state, indeed it is the only truly de facto only state in notoriety, I would like to refer you to the List of Sovereign States(Under the 'Other States' section) and the List of states with limited recognition where Somaliland appears, and has appeared for a long time. We treat all limited recognition states in a uniform manner. Outback the koala (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly undue weight in an article about a language that's primarily spoken in Yemen anyway. The discussion of the issue should remain in articles where it's relevant. In articles where the issue of Somaliland's statehood is irrelevant, like Yemeni Arabic, we should not push the minority POV that Somalia and Somaliland are two separate countries. +Angr 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of Fair User rationales
I have reverted some of the deletion of fair use rationales without any attempt to reach consensus to do so. I see the user box on your user page stating your position. I dispute it, and I give you clear notification that I perceive your edits removing the rationales without consensus to be pointed. With that in mind I will treat any further removal without consensus that I notice as vandalism, making correct reports of this as necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained on the file talk page why the removed rationales were invalid. The image was not being used in one of the articles, and in the other it was being used in direct violation of WP:NFC and its own tag. +Angr 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair use rationale does not mean that an item must be used. It means it may be used. My opinion is that it is valid to use it in either or both of the articles you removed the rationale for. That has been the consensus by default for quite some time.
 * It is usual to point to the talk page in an edit summary when you rely on it to back your work. I have read that and disagree with it. So, if you feel your view should prevail, I suggest you create and reach a consensus with a wide discussion. I will be logging my disagreement on that talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Senchus fer n-Alban
Hi. Given it's an Irish text, is the hyphen correct? Google Books seem to confirm my suspicion: 37 hits for "Senchus fer n-Alban" (this includes apostrophe or space instead of hyphen), 140 for "Senchus fer nAlban". --Thrissel (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, hyphens were never used in Old Irish manuscripts. Whether they're used in modern normalizations of Old Irish depends on the editor doing the normalizing. I don't think it's really possible to say that including the hyphen is either more or less correct than leaving it out. +Angr 20:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I thought about moving it but being ga-0 I'll rely on you and leave it alone. Thanks for the speedy answer. --Thrissel (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of Greek polytonic characters
FYI, I've proposed a different ordering of the Greek polytonic characters in the edit tools at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. --Lambiam 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A mess on the Irish Language Page
Hi Angr, somebody has made a real mess of the Irish language page. They deleted a ton of stuff and replaced it was material lifted from a copyrighted source. I went in to try and fix it, but someone else had edited the file in the meantime, and my limited wiki-skills have prevented me from fixing the edit conflict. Can you have a looksy? Thanks Comhreir (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish exonyms restoration requested
I would like to restore or have undeleted an article at Turkish exonyms which you deleted on 1 July 2009 (Articles for deletion/Turkish exonyms).

I'm not sure why it needed deleting to begin with since it was the same format and type of content of scores of other exonym articles that all survived a previous mass deletion attempt (Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms) and the arguments for deletion were a caricature of the article's actual contents. A vast majority of the entries were true exonyms and not the phonetic transliteration type such as "Şikago" (Chicago) cited.

Since retention exonym lists at Wikipedia has been the rule, I ask that you please review other similar articles linked above and either undelete the article or permit me to restore an article on Turkish exonyms similar to that which was deleted. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack   03:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've userfied it at User:AjaxSmack/Turkish exonyms for you, but it shouldn't be restored in article space without a WP:DRV. +Angr 06:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'll address it there.  —   AjaxSmack   02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Field templates at Code-switching and Code-mixing
User:Stevertigo has offered a great deal of advice on my talk page regarding the pages Code-switching and Code-mixing. The editor appears to have a great deal of interest, but not a great deal of academic background in linguistics or sociolinguistics. I have suggested that the discussion move to the articles' talk pages. Any comments you might make at Talk:Code-switching would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Spieprzaj dziadu!
Hi, we spoke last year about this article but today I noticed here that 5 of the 6 people who voted to delete the article (1 more voted to delete but then changed to being neutral) I created were sanctioned for their involvement in a coordinated group to sway discussions (NB. radek in the AFD is Radeksz in the sanctioning discussion). Is there a chance therefore of reinstating the article since the AFD was rigged (I don't feel like rewriting it from scratch because I have no copy of the original material)? It's worth noting that I'd have voted to keep the article if I'd known of the AFD :) Obviously if it's reinstated and people still think there are a lack of sources, I'd be happy to provide them. Thanks for your time. Malick78 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think that there was a coordinated effort on the part of these editors to get the article deleted, and it would have been kept otherwise, you can start a deletion review. To judge from my closing comments, though, it looks like at best the article would have been merged to Lech Kaczyński, except that since it was completely unsourced even that wasn't a viable option. +Angr 21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It had enough sources to get a DYK :) Furthermore, the Polish WP has a page on it so I think we can assume that a viable article was possible. AFD was not appropriate and it was deleted only because this gang was trying to push their POV. I will try to get the deletion reviewed as you say, thanks for the suggestion. Malick78 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The version I deleted had no sources at all. —Angr (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed the AFD because I had no knowledge of it at the time... but I presume that these other 5 editors removed the sources. I can't tell now though who did it, but the DYK means that sources were originally present. Malick78 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cainnt na nDaoine
Dear Angr, I have deleted Cainnt na nDaoine from PeadarUa Laoghaire's books, because although Peadar UL wrote the foreword, the book was written by a Pádraig Ua Laoghaire, with dates of (1853-1932) according to the National Library of Ireland catalogue. I am trying to find out something abuot this author with no success so far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.180.137 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Catalan
There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Catalan in regards to whether we should represent the postalveolar sibilants with or the more phonetically accurate. I recall that you were involved in a similar issue at Irish phonology, so maybe you could offer your perspective on the issue. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)