User talk:Nardog/2021

Request for COI Assistance
Hi User:Nardog:

Several years ago you helped me with some edits to an article. I was wondering if you would consider assisting me now, a COI, with edits to the Rajiv Shah page? I am currently doing paid editing for him, and am committed to adhering to the rules for such. My goal is to help my clients, and improve Wikipedia. I proposed some updates to the Rockefeller Section (the Rockefeller Foundation page will also be edited soon) on his talk page on December 12th. Would you have time to review them for Wikipedia compliance and make the edits? It looks like people that had an undeclared conflict may have edited the page in the past. Rajiv and Rockefeller are now working with me to do this in a transparent manner, as they didn't understand all of the rules. Eventually, we would like to get the banner at the top of the page removed by doing things the 'right way.' Thank you for your consideration and time. Earlier this year, I started using the COI template, but that now has a backlog of a few months. I appreciate your consideration. Best,LeepKendall (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Nardog/Magic words
Hi, we are in the process of cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and your userpage, User:Nardog/Magic words, has the "high score" for the most redlinked templates in the report with 246! Normally, this isn't a problem, since your page is in userspace and isn't an article, but Special:WantedTemplates is maxed-out at 5000 templates, so we can't see any that are in articles if they fell off the end of the list. Would it be possible to "nowiki" or "#ifexist:" the redlinked templates on that page? That would really help in reducing the number of entries in Special:WantedTemplates and make it easier for us to find the real problems like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_August_2013&diff=prev&oldid=1007929146 this one] which creative editors are introducing everyday. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I've commented the whole page out. Thanks for your maintenance work. Nardog (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Massasoit
I hope you will consider maintaining the four-syllable pronunciation at least as a localism .... growing up it was the only form I'd ever heard ... i suspect if we dig deep enough we will find that it was once intended to be something like /masasawit/ and the version with the vowel hiatus is our best approximation of what we heard. as far as i know, the original Massachusett name is lost       to history and our gloss of    Ousamequin is  entirely unrelated. — Soap — 18:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I will as long as there is a reliable source supporting it, as any editor should. I didn't see you had mentioned a video by the college on the talk page, so I just cited it, though a scholarly source would be better. There seems to be quite a lot of variation: Random House has it, and googling  reveals  is also common. Nardog (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

English velar nasal
Hi, I have been thinking for some time of adding some material about the phonemic status of the velar nasal in English. I have been thinking of doing this in the form of an extra bullet point in English_phonology, but the piece I have written has turned out to be considerably longer than the other bullet points and might look out of place. The material is in my sandbox - I would be glad to know what you think I should do with it. Thanks. RoachPeter (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * How about adding a "Controversial issues" section to English phonology? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with LiliCharlie. For what it's worth, Standard German phonology already has a similar discussion on the phonemicity of the velar nasal, over which I recently raised concern on the talk here. I did a cursory reading afterwards, and it does look like it's not a fringe view, but I'd be interested to know how much support there is for the no-/ŋ/ analysis for German as well. Nardog (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I can do something with that idea. There is some English material that I put in Phoneme that would be more suitable to go in "Controversial Issues", and I think there is more to be said about levels of stress. But I would need to collect some more recent material too - the issues I have talked about have been around for ages. RoachPeter (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A little help needed and encouraged
Hello, Nardog. I was adding Kaingang as an example of the voiceless nasal glottal approximant. However, I messed up the formatting of the source I intended to include a bit (This: http://revistas.iel.unicamp.br/index.php/seta/article/view/557/474.) If you could be of any help, feel free to respond to this comment. Thanks in response and have a nice day, dude! RealWorlderGuy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nardog (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Enzo Scifo
So not ˈʃiːfo and not ʃˈʃiːfo but rather ʃʃiːfo, no ? GabrieL (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? The stress is still there and, in most analyses of Italian, geminates are analyzed as belonging to separate syllables. Nardog (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because I don't manage to pronounce /ˈɛntso ʃˈʃiːfo/ ;-)

Unless /ˈɛntso ʃˈʃiːfo/=/ˈɛntso‿ʃˈʃiːfo/ (cf. ).

GabrieL (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's, with square brackets. This kind of gemination is phonetic.
 * And yes, =  = . At least in transcriptions of Italian (where, AFAIK, we never write ⟨ʃː⟩). Sol505000 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A space in an IPA transcription doesn't mean there's a syllable break there. It's just there to tell the reader which symbols correspond to which word for their convenience. Nardog (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, that's true. In Luxembourgish, the revoiced allophones of word-final obstruents seem to be analyzed as resyllabified to the following word (, the same seems to be true of the lenited allophones of Spanish stops (well, mostly ). In neither case do we transcribe the resyllabification explicitly (⟨zəʑ‿ˈeːns⟩, proposed by Gilles & Trouvain doesn't AFAICS show the resyllabification, just voicing and a lack of a phrase-internal, word-initial glottal stop, which is usual in Luxembourgish anyway). Enzo Scifo is indeed (ignoring stress) when pronounced with a geminated  and  =  when there's a pause between  and . That's not resyllabification as the underlying  spans across two syllables in the former case (and is a single sound  in the latter case), but the idea is the same as far as the readability of phonetic transcription is concerned. Sol505000 (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Nardog, totally didn't mean to do that. I was probably looking at the final diff while making the revert. Thanks for noticing. :) -- Ashley yoursmile!  18:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

/ð/ in Mexican Spanish?
Really? (re: Querétaro) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 19:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no /ð/ in Spanish (slashes indicate a phoneme). in transcriptions of Spanish represents an allophone of /d/ that occurs everywhere except after a pause, [n] or [l], and ranges from approximant to fricative. Symbols for voiced fricatives are often used to represent homorganic approximants or free variation between an approximant and fricative, since ⟨, ,⟩ are historically used almost exclusively for rhotics and semivowels. That's the case with ⟨, ð, ,⟩ for Spanish,  for French, German, Danish, etc. See Help:IPA/Spanish and Spanish phonology. Nardog (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [E]verywhere except after a pause doesn't include the beginning of a word? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 20:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you typically insert a pregnant pause in the middle of saying the name of a place? FWIW we have, , , , , , and . Nardog (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

We can do it together!
Hello, Nardog. On the close-mid back unrounded vowel page, I was trying to add in Iaai as an example, but citations can be a bit complicated to put in. The source I'm using is Phonetic Structures of Iaai and the pdf file is here: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~vanderso/Iaai.pdf (scroll down to page 164, where the vowel chart is located.) I'd like you to put in Iaai to the Occurrence chart, please. I can remove the Bulgarian example because the close-mid back unrounded vowel in that language is actually true mid. Thanks in advance and have a nice day, dude! ;) (Update: I managed to add the Iaai example and removed the Bulgarian word as promised. Regardless, I'm still glad we can talk to each other! :D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealWorlderGuy (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Neologism
Hello Nardog, I replied to your post on Talk:Neologism. – Gebu (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Popularity
Sir! Having an intention to write an article concerning teaching English pronunciation, methinks, it seems to be exceedingly important to know tha authors of the most popular SBs in your country. I think, these are Ann Baker "Tree or three", "Ship or sheep"; English Pronunciation in Use ; Get rid of your accent; O'Connor and Fletcher "Sounds English Am I right, sir? Is it possible to study it without a good instructor?Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I can help you. I don't know what "SBs" means or which country you mean by "your country", and I've never heard of any of the books you mentioned. Also, user talk pages are places to discuss specific edits. Please go to WP:RD/L for general inquiries like this. That way you're much more likely to find people who are willing to help you. Nardog (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yiddish
It has just crossed my mind while we're talking, do you happen to have an idea about this? –Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no expertise on the subject but I managed to find Jacobs' (2005) discussion of affricates on Google Books (which I tried to wrap my head around but the unusual notation gets in my way). If you can't read it I can send you a copy. Nardog (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes please, that would be great! I can only see p. 111 (112+113 are not displayed). Btw, I have borrowed Kleine's Phonetik des Jiddischen (Buske, 2008) from our local campus, but that's just as frustrating as the JIPA article. –Austronesier (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Added a film to Ben Kingsley credits
You did not mention his portrayal as Josh Waitzkins teacher in “Searching for Bobby Fischer”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.40.46 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, how can I help you? All I did to Ben Kingsley filmography was correct the spelling of Dalíland. The list already includes his role in Searching for Bobby Fischer. Nardog (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nardog, I have a question about translations regarding English to Japanese. Thankyou for your time!
I hope you can help me, I wanted to translate my name and other things from English to Japanese, but I'm kind of struggling, say i wanted to translate a name, (proper noun) would i do that by doing each letter of the name one by one? sorry if you do not know japanese names and translations but i thought I'd try and ask, thankyou EzeeWiki (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What I'm up to
I'm trying to suss out whether they're a good faith contributor or UPE/COI which is why I'm non-confrontational at the moment. If they're a good faith newbie, I don't focus on notability to start without overwhelming them with rules. If they're UPE I don't want to spook them and have the run off to a new account where they can easily shop around for a willing admin. So I'm stalling while I look through deleted contributions and establish a pattern. UPE isn't my expertise so feel free to keep chiming in, I appreciate it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

RM notification
An editor has requested for Variation Selectors (Unicode block) to be moved to Variation Selectors. Since you had some involvement with Variation Selectors (Unicode block), you might want to participate in |the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 16:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Movement for discussion closure
Hello, just following up on possible movements on your part for a closure request (or a discussion expansion?) for Template talk:Infobox film, since the RfC tag expired a few days ago. I personally don't have an opinion on the matter at hand, but I wanted to see this discussion closed so I could propose an unrelated change to the infobox. Perhaps a WP:CR is in order? — Goszei (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Nardog (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages
@, according to WP:REDACT "Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes." most of them are almost a year old and and some of them have no replies yet. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Granted, I accidentally reverted some removals which were allowed by the guideline, sorry about that. I've undone them. But Talk:Telugu language, User talk:Fdom5997, and User talk:Fdom5997 had replies, so I restored them and you shouldn't have removed them. Nardog (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, " Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment. " AleksiB 1945 (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to imply with quoting that. Please explain using your own words. Nardog (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, that it is ok to delete it (even if someone has replied) if it has been a long time AleksiB 1945 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence you quoted is saying the exact opposite of that. indicate your changes refers specifically to not removing or changing your comments and instead using  etc., as seen in the bullet points directly following the sentence. Nardog (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"Never break up other people's comments"?
Hello,

In this edit you rearranged the comments on the Reference desk/Language with the edit summary "Never break up other people's comments". I did no such thing. If you look at the history, I added my comment as the last comment in the entire section, and User:Alansplodge then added another comment after it. As far as I can see, both I and Alansplodge did everything correctly. J I P &#124; Talk 23:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to neither you nor Alansplodge. But I was in the wrong nonetheless. The unsigned comment by 174.94.31.124 made it look like Lambiam was breaking up a comment made by you. I've restored the original structure and added unsigned. Nardog (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

About IPA of Jo Siffert
Thanks for the IPA but isn't his native language French? He was born in Fribourg, where more people speak French. His daughter Véronique apparently has a French name. In the website by his son, I guess French is the main language because when choosing the language of the site, French comes ahead of German and English. I suggest adding a French IPA before the Swiss German one.--Njsgdsza (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case I agree. I just saw the request and Duden had only the German pronunciation so I assumed it was a German(ic) name, but if he was a francophone then it makes sense to have the French one. Nardog (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit to Graeme Dunphy
Hello Nardog, your edit summary for your revert was "WP:SELFREF". I saw exactly the same thing on Jimmy Wales' page and just reproduced it. Why do you think it's ok there, but not for Mister Dunphy? (Just for clarity, I'm not him and could prove that, if needed.) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's okay there either. Wikipedia is a free (libre, not gratis) encyclopedia that allows itself to be, and is, reused on other websites and offline, so internal links to non-main namespaces shouldn't in general be placed in article text. If linking to a Wikipedia user page is desired in an article at all, it should be done in the external links section specifying the absolute URL, as far as is allowed by WP:EL (particularly WP:ELMIN). In Dunphy's case the fact he edits Wikipedia isn't even mentioned in the article, so that should be rectified before adding the link, provided there is a reliable source stating he edits under that username. Nardog (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good and acceptable explanation, thank you. Will you do something about Mister Wales' page in this matter? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out the user page was already linked in the external links section so it was redundant. Removed it. Nardog (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

missing section in [w]
Hi Nardog,

With this edit, you say "restore; compressed is still labial", but the effect was the opposite, to remove rather than restore that section. Was that an oversight? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * IIRC I removed Japanese because it wasn't sourced. I can of course name sources that describe it as compressed, but just as easily I can ones that describe it as unrounded. AFAICT both groups of sources are mostly just repeating what others (Hattori, Kindaichi, etc.) said in the past. This 2020 working paper by Maekawa based on real-time MRI data says it's best described as a bilabial approximant. Though it is possible (albeit not likely IMO) that this discrepancy could be explained by dialectal or diachronic variation, I personally wouldn't add or restore a description that contradicts Maekawa without citing an empirical study like his.
 * Swedish was already in the other list. ( Does it mean it varies between compressed and protruded? If so I think it should be clarified.) As for whether to separate protruded and compressed overall, I don't have too strong an opinion so I could see either way btw. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the access to the source anymore, but that's probably what it says. Or it's implied due to the fact that all consonants are allophonically labialized before rounded vowels. It's either of those. Sol505000 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverted Edit; Why?
Hello Nardog. Edited the talk page of Wikimedia but I barely did anything. What did you revert? Twilight Sparkle 222 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't helpful. The original heading was in sentence case, which is the preferred style (MOS:SECTIONCAPS). Although more leeway is generally granted to talk page headings, your edit not only didn't improve anything but made section links in |976870265&limit=2&action=history history not work. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox film
Just FYI, it's not actually all that important to go around manually changing the order of the entry fields in articles that are already using the film infobox — they're always going to display in whatever order the infobox is coded to display them in regardless of whether they're given in that same order or a different one. For example, an individual film could have all of its infobox fields given in reverse order, with title listed as the last field, but the title will still display at the top of the box since that's where the template is coded to display it. So don't feel like you need to waste your time going around changing the order of the entry fields in every one of our tens of thousands of film articles — they'll still display in the preordained order regardless of the order in which they're given in each individual call. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I only edited transclusions of the infobox where a non-initial occurrence of a name was linked as a result of the recent change to the order of the fields, which is a fairly small subset of all articles using the infobox, and I only changed the order of the parameters while I was at it to prevent editors from inadvertently linking the wrong occurrences (thus producing more of what I was fixing) in the future. Nardog (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aaaaah, okay. I misunderstood what you were doing, and thought you were making a juggernaut of unnecessary work for yourself. Never mind, then. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just came here to say the same thing, and I misunderstood as well 😅 -- DaxServer (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

IPAc-en review request
If you have a moment, I'd appreciate a review to Special:Diff/1040330444 on osteogenesis imperfecta. It's adding quite complicated English IPA to an article, and you're much better at that than me. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm honored to be tapped for this! ;) If you want a respelling too it's . Nardog (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, I stuck the H:RESPELL in the infobox! I am trying to get the OI article up to WP:GA quality, and this seemed an obvious omission given few non-physicians can pronounce my condition correctly on first try. (If a physician can't, run roll away quickly.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Another IPA misconception for your user page if you like
"There is no super-phonemic system somewhere in the sky, consisting of universal sounds in one-to-one relationship with IPA symbols". There seems to be a common belief among people with a beginners' understanding of IPA (especially people over at Wiktionary, where I am most active) that each IPA symbol represents precisely one sound, and that sounds that are slightly off from that ideal must be modified with diacritics. Thus you see people transcribing languages like Greek and Spanish, with a canonical five-vowel system, with symbols like, because the /e/ and /o/ of these languages is slightly more open than the "pure" /e/ and /o/ of the IPA vowel chart and the /a/ is central rather than front. Wiktionary transcriptions are better about this now than they were 10 years ago, but you still encounter such transcriptions there (and elsewhere). I suppose this is very similar to your first listed misconception, but from a slightly different point of view. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for User:Nardog/PlayAudioNow
I've been putting off getting MIDI files to work in my browser for a long time, but now I don't have to do it – User:Nardog/PlayAudioNow makes MIDI links on Wikipedia work out of the box. Thank you! —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I really hope something like it becomes natively supported, but I'm not optimistic given many, more popular feature requests sit on Phab for years. Nardog (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:IPA symbol
Hi,

I added some of the (ext)IPA supported by Unicode 14 to IPA symbol, e.g. from Marathi phonology, but it's still generating an error. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Could you fix?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The server cache wasn't up-to-date. See Purge. Nardog (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Phonemes with no IPA symbol
As the phonemic notation absolves one of the need to specify exact phonetic realizations, how does Wikipedia markup handle phonemes with no IPA symbol, e.g. /μ/ (used by Ken Jackson for a 'more nasalized' [β])? Do we still use the IPA template? Tewdar (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We generally enclose even such special symbols in the IPA template as far as I've seen, presumably to allow those who have set a special font for the CSS class to see the symbols in that font (which would be more aesthetically consistent and more likely to be capable of displaying them) and to keep it more semantic. Reconstructed phonemes may be a bit different, and we have PIE etc. for common conventions, but otherwise I'd say use IPA if the notation system that uses the non-IPA symbol is IPA-based in most other parts. Nardog (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Perhaps I'll leave a note for people who'd like an explanation for what /μ/ is supposed to represent. Thanks for the help! Tewdar (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bold move"
I would strongly disagree with your characterization of my move from "Hindi and Urdu" to "Hindustani" as "bold". Hindustani is the preferred term in linguistic circles. You - as someone with a strong background in IPA - should be extremely aware of the fact that the terms Hindi and Urdu are political in nature, and that they hold no scientific or historical clout. Regardless of mainstream linguistic opinion, your undo is completely inconsistent with the way other IPA pages are handled - Tajik, Dari, and Persian are all grouped under the Persian IPA page; Malay and Indonesian (one language similarly "elaborated" into 2 standards) only have one IPA page (named Malay, not Malay AND Indonesian). You should either reconsider your take on this or undertake a complete overhaul of other IPA pages. Esmost  talk   14:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're not familiar with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? "Bold" is not a judgment on your action but merely means "not discussed beforehand". Since this is a potentially controversial topic for the very reasons you've touched upon, I'm encouraging you to initiate a discussion at Help talk:IPA/Hindi and Urdu before making a unilateral move. Nardog (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Um wow this is embarrassing... sorry for the hyper-impulsive reaction. I am of course familiar with the BRD. I should have taken that into consideration before writing a reactionary ADHD-prompted essay. I'll discuss it on the talk page. Esmost   talk   14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Brackets
I've been reading talks about phonetics on Wikipedia, including yours, and I was wondering why you used these brackets ⟨ ⟩ and not those < > when transcribing? Are there any official rules regarding the specific type of brackets one should use when referring to orthographic representations? Has Wikipedia normalised the use of ⟨ ⟩ ? Thank you! Dychari (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,  are technically less-than and greater-than signs so using them as brackets is not quite semantic (it could also interfere with HTML tags unless escaped). See Bracket. $⟨⟩$ were chosen after an extensive discussion to ensure uniformity across platforms—see Template talk:Angle bracket. Nardog (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Midnight Traveler


A tag has been placed on Midnight Traveler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.thefilmcollaborative.org/films/img/epk/Press_Kit_Midnight_Traveler_010819.pdf and http://artsdocbox.com/Movies/129262313-Midnight-traveler-a-film-by-hassan-fazili-and-emelie-mahdavian-87-min-usa-qatar-canada-uk-2019.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What a CIR-fest! The identical source used twice to "prove" a "copyvio", which latter consisted of well-attributed block quotes, somewhat long, but not any longer than what is found in FA and GA. And then uncritically executed and tagged as "Unambiguous copyright infringement" of said two (yeah sure, two!) sources. Curious as I am, I had seen the page on my mobile, but didn't contest the G12 because it's cumbersome while on the (afternoon, not midnight) train. –Austronesier (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Lakota/Sioux distinction
Hi, you may have noticed that I only included one variety of the Sioux language in my edit to the IPA keys template page. The other two varieties of the Sioux language - Dakota and Assiniboine - have no standardized written forms, and the latter variety is no longer mutually intelligible with Dakota and Lakota. Regardless, the language code remains IPA-sio. While changing the name of the article to Help:IPA/Sioux is a possibility, I don't feel like it would be appropriate. I would love your input on this issue, if this even is an issue. Esmost  talk   13:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what you want the new key to be. Do you want it to cover other varieties of Sioux or just Lakota? If former it makes sense to move it to ".../Sioux". Looking at our articles about the languages, I see  is the ISO 639 for the entire Siouan family, not of Sioux. We should probably split IPA-sio into IPA-lak, IPA-dak, and IPA-asb. Nardog (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Signing posts
Thank you. Fixed.

Lord Milner (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:IPA-apc
Hi, the problem is that "apc" refers more generally to Levantine Arabic, though the template is about Lebanese Arabic specifically (whose code is apc-LB). Nehme1499 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know. So edit the template, not move it. Nardog (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The template is already being used in articles for "Lebanese Arabic" pronunciation, and links to Help:IPA/Lebanese Arabic. Ergo, it should be moved. Nehme1499 09:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there are already pages using that template for other varieties I don't see a need to do anything with the template. We should perhaps move the key to ".../(North) Levantine Arabic" and revise it taking Damascus as the reference. I suggest you resume the discussion at Help talk:IPA/Lebanese Arabic. Nardog (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave my opinion there, could you leave a comment? Nehme1499 16:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not ready to devote my time and resource required to give a well-informed opinion on this right now. Move the template back if you like, as those IPA-xx templates are eventually to be merged anyway. By resume the discussion I meant respond to Aeusoes1's comment there, which is very much pertinent, by the way. Nardog (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Russian accents
I strongly disagree with your campaign to remove all accents from Russian names; it makes Wikipedia a less useful place for purely theoretical reasons. I'm not going to try to fight it because I can see from the archived discussion that (as usual) a Wikipedia editor with a strong feeling about an issue has bulldozed all opposition, and there is no point beating my head against a brick wall, but I want to register my disagreement. This is the kind of thing that has made me spend less and less time editing Wikipedia -- I haven't created an article in years now. That's doubtless a win from your point of view. Languagehat (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in the discussion and I don't really prefer one way or the other. I just want our articles to be consistent and policies to be enforced. If you disagree so strongly then there are appropriate forums to take your case to. Nardog (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

'arsehole' vs 'asshole' on Australian Aboriginal English talk page
Hi Nardog, sorry about the reversion, I didn't check the history back far enough (it seemed a straightforward thing at the time) and assumed the original author had used the SAE (Standard Australian English) spelling, but of course they used the US spelling, oddly. But as it's a talk page and that's how the original author wrote it, you're quite correct, it should stay the same. Cheers! Dougg (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Listen
Thank you very much for yesterday's improvements at Module:Listen/sandbox. Is there any reason not to implement them into the live version? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Script
Hi, thanks for picking that up. It should not have happened, and I've requested that Ohconfucius take a look at what happened. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  11:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

template:Letters with diacritic
Just in case you miss it, there is a discussion under way at Template talk:Diacritical marks which involves Letters with diacritic which you created and which and I are updating. I can't think why you would have concerns but I thought it best to invite your comments while it is still in the melting pot. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Where on WT:LING?
For this edit you give the summary “per WT:LING”. What part of that 8000 words long page are you referring to? ◅ Sebastian 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics is what I was talking about. I wasn't disputing your edit per se but it prompted me to restore the label "Fricative/approximant". As discussed in the RfC, the description of [ʍ] etc. is controversial, while our articles used to represent only one side and some of them still do. We should probably merge Labialized velar consonant into Labial–velar consonant, not because they are the same thing but because the former is also called "labial–velar", most notably by the IPA. (And I doubt there's enough WP:SIGCOV for the former, note the complete lack of references.) I'm sure describing in one article all sounds with simultaneous labial and velar constrictions, whether they're better regarded as co-articulated or as having primary and secondary places of articulation, would be more accessible to readers. Nardog (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * – it had to be that longest discussion! I haven't read it yet, but at least the label "Fricative/approximant" makes immediate sense to me. (Which, btw, reminds me of another discussion I'm just having.)
 * Just one idea: Wouldn't it make sense to state the fact that there is a controversy (or allude to it, if SIGCOV is missing) at the individual subtopics (such as and then link to the general discussion from there? ◅ Sebastian 09:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rovaniemi
Could you please explain your edit? Is there something I need to know about how IPA is used differently by OED than by us, or is it just incorrect for this entry? --Espoo (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Help:IPA/English was a more relevant reference than #cite_note-44 (we should probably merge them). In non-rhotic accents, what we transcribe with or  can merge with, in a process Wells terms "smoothing", which is an independent process from that which led to NEAR from having /iːr/ to /ɪə/ in RP and /ɪr/ in GA. Compare e.g. the UK and US entries for utopia. Such a sequence of sounds cannot be represented by ⟨ɪə⟩ in our English IPA key, because it doesn't surface with /r/ in rhotic accents while the key is WP:DIAPHONEMIC. This is why  outputs . (Lexico isn't OED, btw.)
 * The only online general English dictionary that includes the word aside from Lexico was Dictionary.com, which, with an unreduced second syllable, gives what is clearly an approximation of the original Finnish pronunciation rather than a descriptive account of what English speakers say. The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation gives /ˈrɒvəˌnjɛmi/, again likely based on Finnish. Most on YouGlish seem to say . I doubt an established anglicization exists, and I couldn't find any source corroborating Lexico, so removing the transcription altogether may be the best option. Nardog (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation!
 * Since Lexico and Oxford Dictionaries and other previous incarnations have always presented themselves with something like "All definitions and translations are written by Oxford lexicographers", i've always been sure and still am that it's essentially the same content as OED, just reduced to what's important and placed in a more usable order based on frequency. So i'm sure we don't need to corroborate that they have a good reason for their anglicization.
 * For what it's worth, i live in Finland and think this anglicization faithfully records how native English speakers pronounce the word if they're familiar with the word itself, not just the spelling, i.e. they've heard it said many times by Finns.
 * Almost all the examples on YouGlish are misleading nonce productions or the results of English speakers not trying to imitate i.e. anglicize spoken Finnish and instead trying to interpret the spelling based on English spelling habits. It's very sad that this and many other videos on YouGlish are more or less worthless because the site doesn't make an effort to distinguish between people imitating what they've heard native speakers say and what they or others have invented by misinterpreting a written foreign language.
 * Most English speakers in Finland probably produce a secondary stress on the first i and produce an /i/ that is clearly separated from the schwa, not a /j/, which is easy, like in "near".* In fact, they often produce an [i:] because that's of course what English speakers usually think they hear when they hear an unreduced Finnish [i]. So it's very important to put the secondary accent back as in the Lexico transcription, especially since this is exactly like in an English word with this length and a primary accent at the beginning.
 * Further proof of the accuracy of the Lexico anglicization of real, spoken Finnish (instead of spelling pronunciations based on English spelling habits) is that it's almost impossible for English speakers to not produce the diphthong /oʊ/ (or /əʊ/) when they try to imitate the single sound /o/ in Finnish (and other languages). This shows that this transcription is based on English approximation of real Finnish i.e. spoken Finnish whereas the BBC and Random House (Dictionary.com) are recording the nonsense of English speakers trying to pronounce spelling they misinterpret.
 * * BTW, does any English dialect do to "near" (or words with that phoneme sequence) what many do to "new"? I'm an American but can of course say /nju:/, but pronouncing "near" as /nji:r/ or /njɪər/ or /njər/ would probably be impossible if i hadn't learned other languages. --Espoo (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sure some staffers work for multiple projects and they all have access to the same corpora, each dictionary by Oxford (or by any publisher for that matter) is made under a different editorial process and policy. My wish for corroboration has nothing to do with how reliable I find Lexico but it's because dictionaries, including Oxford's, routinely include pronunciations for foreign words that are less descriptive of English speakers and are rather recommendations based on the original language, because they have to double as faithful documentation of English and as a reference work for general consumers. We are generally wary of including them in our articles because we have dedicated templates and keys for other languages.
 * I'm 100% sure the other dictionaries aren't "recording the nonsense of English speakers trying to pronounce spelling they misinterpret" but merely mapping [ˈroʋɑˌnie̯mi] to phonemes in their English models, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ being the closest vowel to a short mid back rounded monophthong in each (British and American) variety. Rather, it is the use of GOAT that is clearly influenced by spelling (unless the English speakers you're talking about are all North Americans who have both father–bother and cot–caught mergers, in which case GOAT is the only English vowel close to [o]; either that or they can't help but parse [ˈroʋɑ] as consisting of two open syllables, which eliminates /ɒ/ as an option). Using /jɛ/ rather than /iə/ even though the original diphthong is a falling one isn't far-fetched either, since /ɛ/ is certainly closer to [e] than /ə/ while /(ˌ)iːɛ/ would be difficult if not impossible for most speakers.
 * The secondary stress following primary stress in Lexico's transcription is a weird one because British dictionaries mostly do without it (compare e.g. UK/US architecture). On Wikipedia we have taken the British approach, but given the stress in the source I agree I should have chosen, never mind how opaque that might be to the uninitiated (and the difference between and  being more conventional than substantial), as we would map Lexico's /ʌɪˈdɪə/ to . Nardog (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to Sasha Stone (blogger)
Hi @Nardog, I noticed you removed the links at the top of this article. I thought that they were helpful, given that they disambiguate three confusingly similarly named subjects. Would you object to me putting them back? Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would, unless Sacha Stone is also a blogger. Otherwise I don't see any reason to make an exception to WP:NAMB. Nardog (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAc-en/styles.css
Template:IPAc-en/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting
Hmm... Btw, the cited text does prominently mention the role of gender and age in this sound change. –Austronesier (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

enPR for uranium
Dictionary.com pronounces uranium as. The respell should place the stress on the syllable starting with R. Should this be fixed on Infobox element/symbol-to-pronunciation? Thank you. serioushat 19:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Both IPA and respelling for uranium in Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-pronunciation already do place the stress on the second syllable. Nardog (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Slovak Phonology
Hello, I have found a reliable source, but I am not very skilled in Wikipedia page editing, as I have only ever edited once, earlier today, which was reverted by you. Therefore I would like to ask for your assistance, parts of the source can be found here https://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/jc/2004/2/jc2004_2.pdf it is a journal published by the Slovenská Akadémia Vied (Slovak Academy of Sciences) and compiled by the Slovenský jazykový ústav Ľudovíta Štúra (Slovak Language Institute of Ľudovít Štúr), on page 106 the table clearly states in IPA that the ť and ď sounds are the palatal plosives c and ɟ. I am not sure how to add the reference to the page Slovak phonology. Thank you very much, have a nice day! Aurel1510 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I managed to do it, the source was actually already there, but well, all is well that ends well, right? Anyways, thanks a lot! Aurel1510 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

corrected Italian pronunciation of the name
both my edit of Caravaggio and your revert of my edit were neither fully right nor fully wrong: actually the preposition DA in Italian can trigger or not syntacti gemination, it is not mandatory, you can check the DIPI dictionary where there are some examples  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.128 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Parentheses added. There are precedents in Leonardo da Vinci, Da capo, etc. after all. Nardog (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

On diphthongs and monophthongization
Thank you for helping with the page. If I understood correctly, /aɪ.ə, aʊ.ə/ are not triphthongs, because, evidently, the diphthong and the vowel are not in the same syllable, vowels in different vowels can't make a diphthong. Therefore what first needs to occur is Sillabicity Loss so that it becomes a 'triphthong' with one syllable, then Smoothing so that it becomes again a diphthong and so (why does the  lose its lengthening, though?), and then this diphthong can undergo monophthongization so that it ends up a single long vowel. Sorry for the inconvenience, should have read up a bit more first, and thanks for the help.

Darkmaster006 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message! I appreciated your collaborative editing and I hope you'll like it here.
 * I agree with your description of the order of events, that is my understanding of Wells as well. Wells apparently thinks an offglide is prerequisite for monophthongization, so if /aɪə, aʊə/ surface as [aː], there must have been an intermediary stage with a diphthong ([a] + glide) rather than deriving directly from a sequence of two syllables with hiatus (see also his idea of the smoothing of /iː, uː/ contributing to the analysis of them as underlying diphthongs on p. 240).
 * The summary of your revert implies that you mistook With the syllabicity loss, the resultant centring diphthong may further undergo monophthongization as saying that [aə̯] further undergoes syllabicity loss, which is not what I meant; it just undergoes monophthongization. So I clarified it to say The centring diphthong deriving from smoothing and syllabicity loss may further undergo.... Is there still anything you find lacking in the paragraph?
 * As for "why" it loses the length, I can't say, but Wells doesn't give the option of monosyllabic but still lengthened [faːə̯] (nor have I heard of such a thing), so it just does, I guess. (Or maybe he explains it somewhere, can't remember.) Nardog (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Excuse me if this is the wrong way to answer in a Talk page, I haven't used one before and this seems to be the way) (EDIT: Fixed it correctly now).
 * Everything looks all right to me now. It was pretty much a mess when I first saw it (so much so that I had to go check on Wells, because it really made little sense). Now it's brief but to the point, and if needed, one can always go back to Wells.
 * Indeed, Wells does not explain. It would seem, for Wells, Syllabicity Loss implies a losing of the lenghtened condition of the first part of the diphthong, for reasons unknown. I'll be consulting Wells these days, so I'll let you know if he explains this anywhere.
 * Glad I was of help, and thank you for the corrections both in style and content Darkmaster006 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. Just FYI, pinging someone on their own user talk is not necessary because they're going to get notified for the message anyway (and adding a user link or re afterward won't fire a notification, see WP:MENTION). Nardog (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Advanced dental
> I got the notation from Interdental consonant. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 04:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. But I'm not sure if the advanced diacritic is used to denote interdental outside SOWL, and even if it is, it must be so noted in each article as it's not quite a typical use of the diacritic. The Spanish example in the voiceless article is noted to be interdental but doesn't have the diacritic. And note it's just American English that's been described to realize /θ, ð/ interdentally. Nardog (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)