User talk:PharyngealImplosive7/Archive 2

Concern regarding Draft:Voiceless labial–velar implosive
Hello, PharyngealImplosive7. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Voiceless labial–velar implosive, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Red links
Hi. Please don't delete red links unless they're frivolous. They serve two purposes: they show which additional articles are needed for coverage of the topic, and they automatically link when an article is written. For example, if a notable person is mentioned (and if it's worth mentioning their name in an article, they're probably notable), then we can expect that sooner or later they will have a bio on WP. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh I didn’t know. Thank you for letting me know and I won’t delete them from now onwards. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. And of course use your judgement for reducing overlinking just as you would with blue links. I let some of the red links you deleted remain that way, because they didn't seem to serve any purpose -- if there were an article there, would it be beneficial to the reader to link to it? Would the subject be better served if someone created an article to turn the red link to blue? People track which red links have the most incoming connections ('what links here') and prioritize them for article creation. But if it's unlikely an article would be worthwhile, especially if the reference can be understood from context, or if it is already adequately covered and doesn't need to be split off as a separate article, then there may be no reason to have a red link. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I shouldn't be pontificating. It's covered better at WP:REDLINK. — kwami (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That is true. I’ll be sure to look at the Wikipedia policy, and thanks anyways. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, those guidelines shouldn't be followed too narrowly. They say "remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject," but that's too strict -- if you would delete a blue link per MOS:OVERLINK, then you shouldn't keep it just because it happens to be red. IMO at least. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sino- en-dash
Hi, PharyngealImplosive7. Why do you think Sino-Tibetan languages, etc should have an en-dash? It doesn't seem to fit within the en-dash cases of MOS:HYPHEN. Kanguole 10:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, MOS seems to suggest that you shouldn’t use a hyphen unless the previous word is modifying the next. I don’t think that “Sino” is modifying “Tibetan”. It’s a little bold, I know.
 * This is what WP:Dashes (in page titles section) has to say about it: “ In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand).” PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference is that "Sino" by itself isn't a word, so this isn't a conjuction of words as described by MOS:ENBETWEEN. Rather this is intra-word punctuation, for which hyphens are used. Kanguole 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. You could revert my edits, or start a discussion on the talk page. Either is fine by me. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll revert them. You could start a discussion somewhere, but everyone seems to describe Sino- as a prefix. Kanguole 10:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Double spaces
Please do not remove double spacing from articles. Many of us find the wikitext more readable with sentences clearly separated, and it does not affect the display. WP:COSMETICBOT advises against making such changes in bulk, especially with JWB, etc. MOS:DOUBLESPACE has more information. Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok. I never saw the policy and did not know that they would become rendered as one space. Thanks for letting me know. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Jad language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aspiration and Voice (linguistics). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Voiceless labial–velar implosive has been accepted
 Voiceless labial–velar implosive, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Voiceless_labial%E2%80%93velar_implosive help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! PK650 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)