User talk:Nardog/2018

Rainworth
Hi I live in Rainworth and I was going to add a sound to show how the village name is pronounced however it's locked. Could you contact me at (awindup) at hotmail.com to get an authentic pronunciation? Yours Paul Pengelly Fyi if you prefer to do it yourself that's fine just trying to help. Awindup (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message but I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you talking about the article Rainworth? As far as I can see the article is not "locked", or, as the Wikipedia community calls it, protected. So you can edit it yourself as far as I know.
 * If you want to upload a sound file, you need to go to Wikimedia Commons. And here's an instruction on how to add the file on Wikipedia once you have uploaded it on Commons. If you have any further questions, you may ask them at the help desk. Hope this helps. Nardog (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a page on English pronunciation you edited in last day or so that's all not the village page it's a language one so it's locked . Awindup (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: M–Z what you're talking about? Are you saying it's not pronounced, which the article claims it is? Nardog (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If say forget it because you are obviously busy . I just found a series of pages where the place names were contradictory pronunciations and Rainworth was in there some of the others had samples and this one didn't but I really can't be bothered now... As you'd edited 1 day ago I thought you'd know which page but you're talking about a totally different one so you must do far too many to remember sorry to disturb you . Paul Awindup (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's OK. Do you have a link to one of the pages you're talking about? I checked my contributions log but couldn't find any page that had the pronunciation (or even a mention) of Rainworth that I recently edited. (Please use the "[edit]" link next to the section title to add a reply.) Nardog (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable speakers of RP
I was very disappointed by your deletion of the list of YouTube links to "Notable speakers of RP". I have had quite a lot of positive feedback about them from readers. I proposed adding the links on the Talk page some time ago, and asked for comments, but I got nothing from you (or anyone else). I have to say that if I had been going to delete a piece of your work, I would have notified you beforehand. I have now moved the links to my own website, with a link to that. I sincerely hope you will not now go on to delete the specimen of RP that I contributed some time ago. RoachPeter (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure any experienced editor familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines would have done the same thing as I did. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook, manual, dictionary, or directory, a repository of links, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Your links also included ones to videos seemingly not uploaded by their respective content owners, which is a clear violation of . If you intend to write from a purely educational point of you, I suggest you consider writing on Wikibooks or Wikiversity rather than here.
 * I have to say that if I had been going to delete a piece of your work, I would have notified you beforehand. Edits on Wikipedia do not need prior discussion so long as they are supported by valid reason – see Be bold. While I admire your work as a phonetician and I have no reason to doubt your intention to improve Wikipedia, I can't imagine any experienced editor approving of your edit in question in light of WP:LINKFARM, WP:External links, etc. Nardog (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Professor Roach, I'm quite astonished to find that you "presume that [I] would also like [you] to remove the IPA Illustration of RP that [you] also contributed to the article". Could you explain why you think I—or anyone—would want to do that? Both the recording and the transcription you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy, whereas your links to YouTube clearly do not comply with multiple points of the content guideline External links, particularly the statements such as Some external links are welcome ... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article; and External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner. Also note that it says The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. I strongly recommend you take a thorough look at the guideline, along with some of the policies and guidelines it links to, particularly What Wikipedia is not.
 * While I appreciate your effort to improve the phonetics-related content on Wikipedia, I regret to say some of your comments on talk pages and on your blog reflect—in my opinion—insufficient understanding of Wikipedia's goals and ideas. Particularly, I was recently reading your blog and struck by your assertion from three years ago that (you were told that) Wikipedia "doesn't want experts writing on their own fields, but pieces written by non-specialists who just report on what other people have said". While the very fact you had that impression tells me the person(s) who explained it to you may not have been doing as great a job as they could have done, and you might have a better understanding now, I nonetheless find it important to point out it is—again, in my personal opinion—a gross misrepresentation of Wikipedia's principles. Wikipedia welcomes experts writing on their own fields with open arms; it just does not hold them to any lower standard than anybody else (see Expert editors, Relationships with academic editors). You and I know you are a renowned phonetician. So I can take your word for it whenever it has an attribution to you. But the text of Wikipedia doesn't have attribution to any individual editor and can be modified by anybody by design. So how does one know an article is written by someone with an adequate understanding of the subject? One may look at the revision history and then at the profile of each contributor, but not every editor reveals their identity or is an academic, and if Wikipedia only allowed edits from distinguished academics such as you it wouldn't have been nearly as popular or flourished. So what it does instead is require everyone, without an exception, to make sure each contribution is verifiable with reliable sources. (So, as I commented on Talk:Phonetic palindrome, it may sometimes be more acceptable for you, an authority on the subject, to publish content on your website and then cite it as a source than to post directly on Wikipedia, per .) I'm sure this is to an extent a concept already familiar to you by now, but I debated whether to point it out to you when I was reading your blog a few weeks ago and I figured I might as well use this opportunity to do it now.
 * Going back to this incident, I also find it important to point out that Wikipedia is not a place to promote any particular idea, however virtuous it may be. The burden of making sure people accurately appreciate what Received Pronunciation is is on them, not on us editors. Our primary job is to document and describe things, not to educate people. So while your JIPA specimen perfectly suits the article as it illustrates Received Pronunciation according to an article published in an influential, peer-reviewed journal, whose author happens to be you, we need not go so far as to provide links to (comparatively) random videos found on the internet just so readers can have a further appreciation of what RP is. That burden is on them. (The links may also be problematic as, like Sidney Wood has raised issues in a comment on your blog, people still debate what RP is or even whether it exists, while the specimen was published specifically as an illustration of RP in a scientific publication.) If your primary motivation is to educate people on phonetics, I suggest you do it on your site, Wikibooks, or Wikiversity, or in another form.
 * That being said, I look forward to more of your feedback on Wikipedia's coverage on phonetics, which I'm sure has been invaluable to many. You are also invited to the History of the International Phonetic Alphabet article, which I recently revised mostly from scratch and which is by far my biggest contribution to Wikipedia. I think it improves upon the Kiel Convention, which you previously discussed on your blog, and, since you are one of the direct witnesses and participants to the subject of the article itself, your comment would be greatly appreciated. I apologize for the long-winded reply and am sorry that you were disappointed, but I hope something fruitful will come out of this. Nardog (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your full and prompt reply. I accept the points you make, and it's clear that I still have not properly understood how WP works and is managed. I am sorry I complained about the deletion of the links I had put in. I should have taken time to reflect. There are several points you make that I still need to understand, and might want to ask you about, but for the present I want to apologize for having written what I did. RoachPeter (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding, I appreciate your apology. Please feel free to ask me further questions, but I also would like to emphasize that I can only speak from my perspective and I do not comprehend Wikipedia's policies and guidelines fully either. You may want to go to WP:Help desk if you want more comprehensive, neutral or diverse answers. But again, direct questions are also welcome. Nardog (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

⟨ω⟩
Hi. Was $⟨⟩$ ever an official symbol, or was it just an invention of Wells? If it's the former, maybe it'd be good to use the symbol on near-close back unrounded vowel. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no, it was never part of the IPA—I don't even recall seeing the symbol in any of the works I cited in History of the IPA. I don't know if it was Wells who devised it, but it does seem AoE is the only major publication that has used it for the unrounded [ʊ] (Pullum & Ladusaw 1996:146). Nardog (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So it's probably not a very good idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfinished business
Hi, Nardog. This outburst reminded me that you still haven't addressed the last comment I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/January 2018—in particular, where I pointed out that Help:IPA/Japanese tells us that [ɯ] is pronounced at the as the [uː] in "food" (the whole dispute at ukiyo-e was over the use of [u] vs [ɯ]). That really can't go unadressed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Any example in the "English approximation" column in any IPA key is inevitably that—an approximation—since obviously English does not have all sounds found in languages and there is a great deal of variation among the accents of English. No major variety of English has a sound which closely and reliably corresponds to the Japanese /u/ (while FLEECE more or less reliably corresponds to Japanese /i/ save for length, for example), hence the additional qualifier "roughly like".
 * English GOOSE is quite variable: in North America, it is usually fronted to [ʉ~y] except in the US North (see ANAE); in RP (or, whatever it is the least regionally marked variety of British English based on Southern English accents), the trend is to pronounce it more like the Japanese /u/, i.e. more front and less round (see Received Pronunciation). But this is true for almost all accents: GOOSE is not as front or unrounded as FLEECE, nor is it as low as FOOT. So it is the closest sound found in English to Japanese /u/. Nardog (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This lecture totally misses the point, and I think you know by now that I'm not simply ignorant in things phonological, so we'd get further if you stopped making that assumption.
 * Your argument was that we couldn't present readers with /u/ as any sort of approximation of the initial vowel in "ukiyo-e" in a pronunciation guide, because people will click through to Help:IPA/Japanese and get confused. Then Help:IPA/Japanese gives us an approximation we've bent over backwards to avoid giving them.  This contradiction needs to be dealt with—either by fixing Help:IPA/Japanese, or (better) by dropping the ideology and giving readers a simple IPA pronunciation guide with links to the nitty-gritty details for those interested in them.  You know, the way we do everything else on Wikipedia.
 * Regardless, it's an issue that has to be addressed, and not brushed aside with tangential mansplanations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I came across as condescending to you, but I'm still having a hard time understanding what you're getting at. As far as I can see, there is no "contradiction", because, again, the English /uː/, albeit variable, is still the closest sound English has to the Japanese /u/. And, as far as I'm concerned, giving readers a simple IPA pronunciation guide with links to the nitty-gritty details for those interested in them is what we already do. (I assume your argument is that the IPA pronunciation guides are already too nitty-gritty and should be simpler?) In any case, if you believe we should do things differently, I'd appreciate if you posted that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation or wherever appropriate rather than here. Nardog (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bring this to another outside forum? No, because the locus of the dispute is with you, and the contradiction is not at Help:IPA/Japanese, but with your assertions about it (it needs to be "fixed" only to conform to your assertions).  You've overturned a consensus that held at the ukiyo-e page for years—one that went through WP:PR, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, WP:TFA, and well over a million page views.  You overturned it on a faulty assumption, and have simply ignored explanations about why this particular representation was chosen (to serve multiple use cases for a wide variety of readers and contexts, not one narrow Japanese-specific one).  I gave you the benefit of the doubt by removing it until the dispute was resolved—the default is to keep the established version until then—but you've been dodging discussion ever since, with the assumption (which you've resumed here) that the issue is that I just don't "get" IPA (a condescending attitude that has blinded you to why your edit has been problematic).
 * If you refuse to engage in actual good-faith discussion to find a consensus for your change, then per WP:CONSENSUS I'll be restoring the IPA that stood there for years, serving the purpose and audience it was intended to serve. I say this not to be combattitive, but because (I've I've gone over in excruciating detail) your edit has reduced the breadth and applicability of the pronuciation guide—it has degraded the usefulness and accessibility of the content.  For what gains to the general readership?  You haven't made a case there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and restore it. Nardog (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your question at WP:AN3
About your question: why not ask User:Bishonen if this is still an issue for you. To me, the block length appears normal for the incivility regardless of the details. See this comment by Mr KEBAB which I assume is typical. At least, Jakeroberts93 said Mr K leaves 'very demeaning messages' in a comment just above yours at AN3. I did not check all of Mr KEBAB's past comments, but let me know if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My question wasn't about the block length but about the fact the background for the block was not clear for those not directly involved to see. In fact, Jakeroberts93 there seems to have thought that the reason for the block was the language he used in his own talk, which in fact was merely his reaction to the block. (I did ping Bishonen at AN3, btw.)
 * For the record, I worked with Mr KEBAB for months (our interests seemed to overlap to a large extent), and it is undeniable he had some issues regarding civility—he had no trouble working with editors with competence, ready to compromise at times, but he seemed to be really short-tempered with editors inexperienced in phonetics/linguistics—but I wouldn't in any way describe that comment as "typical". If it were, he would have been gone a long, long time ago. Nardog (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Query
Where can I find detailed explanations about #if #switch #invoke? Harsh Rathod Poke me!  15:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Help:Magic words, Help:Conditional expressions, mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. Next time you may want to go to WP:Help desk for this kind of inquiry though. Nardog (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I asked you because you are a template editor and I thought you would reply fast. But no problem, thanks for the advice. Harsh Rathod Poke me!  04:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

IPA for Yuna
Can you help me to write the IPA for Yuna in Yuna page? You can hear the word 'Yuna' from any videos or interviews about her on YouTube. Thank you! Adib Kamaruddin (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be, but I don't know why you'd need it on the page. Do people find it difficult to pronounce? Unless they do, I don't think it should be added in consideration of WP:LEADPRON. Nardog (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation prescripts
I think the UK and US prescripts should only be used in pairs. In the case of Guy Fieri, we can't know the UK pronunciation of his name, and his nationality already implies that the pronunciation is for US English anyway. --maczkopeti (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Without a label an IPAc-en notation by default implies that it is panlectal. You may start a discussion at Help talk:IPA/English about this if you like, but I'd appreciate it if you refrained from boldly removing them from articles. Nardog (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Requested move/testcases
My bad, for some reason it didn't cross my mind to use my own sandbox to do the exact same thing. No wonder it hadn't been edited since 2013. 93 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

/g/
So /g/ is marked as a misspelling. The problem with misspellings in hatnotes is that they show up in the Database reports/Linked misspellings list, demanding the attention of the spelling patrol to fix them. Misspellings simply should not be in hatnotes. So my question is, what is the single Unicode character /g/ a valid spelling for? We should redirect that character to its valid use. wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. It's actually 3 characters. It seems to be a valid use at so we could redirect it to there, with a hatnote from there back to the IPA article. wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. I wonder how many people type "/g/" to get to Voiced velar stop and how many to get to 4chan, but I don't think either is many. But "g" is a legitimate typographical alternative to "ɡ" in IPA and all IPA characters enclosed in slashes redirect to the page about the corresponding sound (/l/, /p/, etc.), so for consistency's sake I think the target is best left as is.
 * One more thing: Is a redirect from a misspelling? And why is it there? lol Nardog (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. I see that is was just tagged as a misspelling fairly recently by an IP. Yeah, I dunno about that tpyo template either! wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Stress tag on Cetiosauriscus
Hi there. I'm just wondering why you added a "stress?" tag behind the IPA for the Cetiosauriscus article. I'd like to figure out how to fix and remove it but I'm not quite sure what it is indicating. Thanks --IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All English words with two or more syllables have at least one stress, indicated by "ˈ" (primary) and "ˌ" (secondary, tertiary) in the IPA. I instated the tag because the pronunciation notation lacked it. Anyway, I have fixed it with a source. Nardog (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

2ary stress
Hi Nardog,

Yes, I believe that was the consensus. Since per Ladefoged English does not have post-tonic stress, it would be factually incorrect for us to do so. The OED, btw, does not add such faux stress to words, even 'motorcycle'. Other dictionaries use the bottom stroke to mark unreduced vowels, but that's not the IPA definition of that IPA symbol, and since we have dedicated symbols for reduced vowels, we don't need to fake it.

It's not our definition either. I'd really prefer not to expand the English IPA table to explain that if the bottom stroke comes before the top stroke, it indicates stress, but that if it comes after it does not, and is completely meaningless.

Another one of our consensuses was that stressed syllables should be marked, e.g. that we should not follow the confusing practice of some dictionaries in marking a single syllable with a stress mark to indicate that it's really two syllables. After all, there are lexically unstressed words in English, even if they're not likely to be used as the title of a WP page.

— kwami (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the discussions where those consensuses were formed? Nardog (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was years ago, when we worked out the pan-dialectal IPA-en key and the months during which we implemented it across WP. The reason we have the current semi-phonemic transcription of rhotic vowels is that RP speakers wouldn't stand for a phonemic transcription, and we compromised. They're in the archives somewhere.

The problem with following dictionaries on stress, beside deciding which one to elevate over the others, is that their conventions were formed by impressionistic transcriptions in the late 19th to mid 20th century. Research has since shown that they are not accurate lexical-phonemic descriptions, mixing up as they do prosodic stress, lexical stress and vowel reduction. What we currently have is fairly straightforward, if not exactly phonemic -- the final stressed syllable takes the 1ary mark, while all preceding stressed syllables take the 2ary mark. Last I heard, no language was known to have phonemic 2ary lexical stress, though there were arguments about the quality of data and analysis for some other Germanic languages that were commonly transcribed with 2ary stress.

The OED is the greatest dictionary ever written, so I don't think we should have difficulty justifying following them and phonetic research in not transcribing all non-reduced vowels as having imaginary 2ary stress. But, if we do decide to do that, and wish to be responsible to our readers, we'll need to explain that a 2ary stress mark before a 1ary stress mark indicates (primary) stress, but that a 2ary stress mark after a 1ary stress mark indicates no stress. Which I foresee generating a lot more arguments than just following the OED and Ladefoged.

(Phonemically, of course, per Ladefoged we should only use the 1ary stress mark, but the current convention does little harm. Though, with only one stress mark, we might not rehash this argument every couple years.)

As for marking stress on monosyllables, we've been over that many times too. The OED, for example, uses a stress mark to distinguish disyllables from monosyllables, which is not how the IPA defines it. That's why we clarify usage of the syllable break in the IPA key. And in several of our articles, we do transcribe unstressed words, and if we didn't mark stressed monosyllables, we'd have no way of indicating they were unstressed. Basically, though, if we're going to have a phonemic transcription between virgules, then ideally the transcription should be phonemic -- which means indicating stress when there is stress. Again, if we decide not to do that, we should change the description in the IPA key to note that the stress mark only indicates stress in polysyllables, while stressed monosyllables are not distinguished from unstressed.

— kwami (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is one supposed to believe there ever were such consensuses, then?
 * OED is indeed a great dictionary, but pronunciation always was and remains to be one of the weakest aspects of the dictionary. Even Ladefoged recommends LPD and CEPD over Upton & Kretzschmar (not to mention no publisher has adopted OUP's notation while the Jonesian/Gimsonian systems remain standards in EFL/bilingual dictionaries). And, as you know, LPD and CEPD indicate post-tonic secondary stress in compounds. Even Ladefoged recognizes [+full vowel] as a contributing factor to the levels of stress. Do you have any source that categorically states post-tonic stress isn't stress? I also find the idea that dictionaries "omit" stress in monosyllables to distinguish e.g. hire from higher hard to believe because even dictionaries which indicate stress boundaries, such as LPD and CEPD, do not include stress in monosyllables. Please just provide references for your claims when making any. Nardog (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I assume the discussion is in the archive of either the IPA key, the template, or the MOS, but other than that I don't remember.
 * Ladefoged does note that stressed vowels must be full. However, he's very clear that a vowel being full does not make it stressed. That's basic to his conclusion that English has only one lexical stress distinction. The 2ary "stress" (which he notes has none of the articulatory characteristics of stress) in compounds is predictable by the vowel not being reduced. That is, the 4 stress levels sometimes distinguished are a lexical + prosodic stress (1ary), lexical stress alone (2ary), unstressed full vowel (2ary or 3ary, depending on the analysis), and reduced vowel (4ary). Basically, we never reduce stressed vowels, and prosodic stress only falls on stressed vowels, but that doesn't mean that lack of reduction is a kind of stress.
 * Also, if we use the 2ary stress mark both pretonically and posttonically, as the dictionaries you cited do, then we're conflating 2ary and 3ary "stress". That is, the phonemic nature of what the mark represents depends on where it is, not what it is. I suppose we could transcribe it /"battle,ship/, with <"> for 1ary, <'> for 2ary, <,> for 3ary (full vowel) and unmarked for 4ary, and explain that <,> isn't actually stress, and that <"> varies with <'> depending on where the word is in a sentence, rather than trying to explain that <,> is sometimes stress and sometimes not, depending on where it is in a word.
 * "Omit" is maybe too strong a word. Rather, I assume (and it's only an assumption) that a dict like the OED doesn't need to indicate syllable boundaries because they only use stress marks for polysyllables. If they used a phonemic transcription, they'd need either a syllable-boundary marking to distinguish hire and higher (<'haɪər>, <'haɪ.ər>), or convey the difference in the vowels (<'haɪr>, <'haɪər>, which would reflect their historical origins). Since there are lexically unstressed words with full vowels, like "could", "me", "are", stress is distinctive in monosyllables. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Also Aeusoes1, can you confirm Kwami's assertion that consensuses were formed to eliminate post-tonic stress and to indicate stress in monosyllables? I ask because I think you're pretty much the only one who's been around for as long as Kwami. Nardog (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Thanks for your note about conflict of interest. I do not have an interest in the subject I've written about. is there material you have read that would indicate that I have a bias one way or the other? Unbreakable9 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You said you hold the copyright on still photos from the movie Icarus on Commons. If you're not affiliated with the movie, then how do you own the copyright? Nardog (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a freelance journalist and photographer. I shot those photos on set for a story about the film in a local paper that was never published. Unbreakable9 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "never published"? The pictures are all over the internet, not to mention the metadata in the pictures you uploaded explicitly say "Copyright holder: NETFLIX" and "Copyright status: Copyrighted". Nardog (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

please delete these image from wikicommons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbreakable9 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Levin
Hi Nardog. Beth Levin's last name is pronounced with /iː/ rather than /ɪ/ in the second syllable. I'd included the IPA because this is a bit unexpected based on the spelling of her surname.LingLass (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Help:IPA/English key which Template:IPAc-en adopts defines /i/ as a weak vowel which may be identified as either /iː/ or /ɪ/ depending on accent (the "happY vowel"), so the previous notation was nonsensical. Nardog (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

IPA chart of English dialects
Have I understood you correctly? You'd be in favor of deleting that article? Because I think I would too. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I would. My rationale would be that, as I touched upon on the talk, the article sets out an unattainable goal (and fails massively) as it is impossible to decide on how narrow or broad the chart should be, or on which accents to describe in any way that would escape the criticism of being partial or arbitrary. But since evaluation of such a rationale entails a fair amount of familiarity with the subject, I bet we have a better shot at redirecting it to English phonology or some article (probably via RfC) than at AfD, which, by nature, tends to be political. Nardog (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jang Gil-su
Examining the original you specified, I find it neither a copyvio or a close paraphrase. If I am in error, please let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, since the first revision was nothing but copyright violation, I filed it for SD, but it has since been expanded, so I'm instead redacting the violating parts and filing it for a revdel. Nardog (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

South Korean scandals
Hi Nardog

I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals (2nd nomination), and also rev-deleted some edits from Political scandals in South Korea and Talk:Political scandals in South Korea that contained merged material from the deleted page. Do you want to have a look at those to just make sure I did the right ones? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of the closure and for the heads-up! Yes, I confirm the deleted revisions are the correct ones. Thanks again for doing this. Nardog (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Dat oder French accent
Tanks! Dere aren't a lot of "acceptable" references to it, not dat I could find anyway! Awien (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Lutz Ebersdorf listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lutz Ebersdorf. Since you had some involvement with the Lutz Ebersdorf redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Iffy★Chat -- 14:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
after my botched move. I had intended to split them because, they are, both essentially and legally, different entities. Hayholt (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks part 2
Thanks for this N. I couldn't tell how far back the nonsense went so I appreciate your fixing things. The page sure seems to have had a lot of vandalism over time. I've added it to my watchlist to try and help. It might be a candidate for WP:RFPP if this keeps up. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah - I see you already put in a request at RFPP and it has been acted on. Thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
I don't know a thing about your language expertise but I am glad that people bring their skills to Wikipedia. Thanks from someone who's opinion is really my own. Why did I just read your talk page? Must have too much time to waste. Eschoryii (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Flapping
If it is a quote, where are the quotation marks? Esszet (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Nardog (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, it doesn't look like a quote, it just looks like a bulleted list. Esszet (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What it looks like should not be much of our concern. The important thing here is that  signals that its content is a quotation. And it does look different compared to a bare bullet list:At any rate, it's not really my purview to decide how block quotations should look like. I sort of agree that their being quotations is not all that intuitive, but that's a conversation that belongs to some place like WT:MOS. (The difference is more apparent on mobile, by the way.) Nardog (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? Yes, it is our concern, it just looks like a bulleted list that was moved over too far.  I guess we aren’t making decisions about what block quotations should look like, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bulleted list as a block quotation anywhere before (hence the edit), so the onus is on you to explain why it should be.  It wouldn’t be a difficult fix; I’d say the best thing to do would be to paraphrase here. Esszet (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long, but you there? I've been dealing with things in my personal life of late. Esszet (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To remove the blockquote element enclosing the list would be plagiarism. But MOS:BLOCKQUOTE leaves us no other option than to use blockquote when quoting a text consisting of more than one paragraph. The fact it looks like a bulleted list moved too far on the desktop version is just a consequence of the way that one version of the website interprets the wikicode, and therefore to do away with the blockquote simply because of it would be ill-motivated. Paraphrasing is certainly an option, but only if it improves the content as a whole, not just how it appears on just one version of the website. If you can think of a paraphrase that improves the content of the article, great. If not, the quote should stay, as far as I'm concerned. Nardog (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the desktop version is THE most common, I paraphrased...does it look alright to you? Esszet (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually no, more than half of our traffic comes from mobile users. But that's beside the point—the point again is that the blockquote element serves the role of embedding meta information that is more than just aesthetic. And one does not call what you did paraphrasing—you just changed some words without even changing the structures of the sentences and removed the element—that's plagiarism. And I'm at a loss as to what your problem is in the first place. Given your edits both times, you don't seem to have a problem with the article presenting Vaux's analysis in the form of a bullet list. So what actual harm is there in the list looking "moved over too far"? At any rate, try seeking a consensus at Talk:Flapping if you still want to pursue this. Nardog (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Italian
Hello Nardog. I've seen that you've edited Help:IPA/Italian in the past, so I thought you could help me to understand a thing. Note 5 says: "the n in /nɡ/~/nk/ is a velar [ŋ], and the one in /nf/~/nv/ is the labiodental [ɱ]". I was wondering why in the symbol list does appear ŋ but ɱ doesn't, but I've read in the same note: "but for simplicity, ⟨m⟩ is used here". Why such a distinguo is made here? In Italian a nasal always assimilates to the following consonant, so ŋ can be found just before k and g while ɱ can be found just before f and v. If it's for simplicity, then also ŋ should be transcribed as n (since, unlike in other languages, in Italian this sound can't be found elsewhere). But this makes the transcription less accurate. Then, why doesn't ɱ have its own place in the list? It's weird to me such a different treatment... Could you enlighten me about this issue, please? Fotrion (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, there is a lengthy discussion about it archived here but it's tl;dr for me. As you say, it is inconsistent to use [ŋ] but not [ɱ] when both are allophonic in Italian, although I can also see an argument for the current way because [ɱ] is extremely rare as a phoneme while [ŋ] is relatively common, and [nk] is not impossible in English when spanning syllables. Theoretically it would make more sense to either use [ɱ] too or use [n] in place of [ŋ], but either way we should look into literature rather than decide based on how we feel about it. Why don't you bring it up at Help talk:IPA/Italian? Nardog (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Spam reversal
Are you aware that with this revert action on User talk:John of Reading you've removed not only a misplaced entry by user Seahawks1819, but also the John's answer to a previous entry by User:Foniasin, as well as a header added to the question? --CiaPan (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Pls answer here, I'm watching. CiaPan (talk)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've now reverted it to the right revision. Nardog (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Actually, I was going to fix it myself, but I thought it might have been deliberate so I've stopped just before submitting my changes. :) Glad to help. --CiaPan (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Nardog. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANardog enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! 5 albert square (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Deletion discussion about Compulsion (2016 film)
Hello, Nardog,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Compulsion (2016 film) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Compulsion (2016 film).

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

 scope_creep Talk  19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Not sure why you deleted my comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Was there a particular reason? Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to delete your comment at all and it was purely accidental. I sincerely apologize. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for restoring it. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)