This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 May 2020 and 28 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Diaosita.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jerinaforestall.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
If "erroneously, Evenk language", why is this the name of the article? Yonidebest 00:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You show an estimate of 29,000 and one of 7,500. Neither is sourced. Please straighten this out. (Also, does the statistic that the Evenk are 92% Russian-speaking include the ones in China?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Evenk language → Evenki language – as per article and above discussion cab 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Is Solon language something different from Evenki? I don't mean to ask whether it's a language or a dialect, but whether it's not just an alternate name for Evenki, as Ethnologue says. -- Ptcamn 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently the infobox was updated with dubious information. Please cite 1) that Chinese language "orthography" is in Mongol script; 2) that the name is nonetheless written in Mongol script without following its conventions; 3) Russian language orthography/terms transcribed into Latin with macrons. If there is no reliable reference indicating these transcriptions, they should be removed. Additionally, I have corrected misleading cited text that previously indicated Mongolian was a normative script for Evenki. The cite, however, indicates the opposite: that its use is experimental. JFHJr ( ㊟) 23:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the Cyrillic name as given in a dictionary from 1994. I would give IPA or a Latin spelling but I'm not sure of the exact value of ы̄. I think Nedjalkov has it as /ɯː/, and he transcribes it to Latin as yy. Bulatova & Grenoble don't mention this sound at all. Bulatova's Russian works similarly don't give a phonetic description for the letter ы̄ (only и/ӣ --- she doesn't give IPA in her Russian works, but she describes as front high vowels), even though this letter shows up all the time even in her own examples (e.g. it's part of many morphological suffixes). So unfortunately for the readers who don't know Cyrillic there's no transcription I can give. The Latin transcriptions used in China aren't appropriate in this case because the vowel sounds are different there. Eric Baer ( talk) 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For the phonology section I'd like to point out that the dialects in China have a lot more vowels. But I'm not sure what's the best way of fitting this all into the table. Brief overview of what we're dealing with: Chaoke (himself an Evenk, from Nantun in Evenk Autonomous Banner) these days (1995, 2005) seems to be saying /a/, /ə/, /i/, /e/, /o/, /u/, /ɵ/, /ʉ/ and long versions of each. (Hu and Chaoke 1986 had even more. They also pointed out two diphthongs, but restricted to Chinese loanwords). Seong et al (2010), based on an informant from Zalantun, come up with /a/, /ə/, /i/, /o/, /ɔ/, /u/, /ʊ/ (plus long versions of all but /ʊ/).
Regarding Mongolian script for Evenki, the only work I know of where it gets used is 《鄂温克语蒙汉对照词汇》 (People's Publishing House, 1983). It's an Evenki-Mongolian-Chinese dictionary. It lists Evenki words in IPA, pinyin-style Latin, and Mongolian script. Dunno if this qualifies as a "native" orthography for Evenki, though. Incidentally, the title of that dictionary is given in Mongolian on its cover page (sorry, FreeBSD, no Mongolian Unicode support so I'm spelling it in Latin): "Eweŋki Moŋɣol Kitad Kelen-ü Qaričaɣoloɣsan Üges-ün Tegübüri" (aka "Эвэнки Монгол Хятад хэлний харьцуулсан үгсийн түүвэр" for those of you who prefer Cyrillic). So even in Mongolian, the "ŋ" followed by "k" rule gets broken ... Eric Baer ( talk) 03:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Subtle vandalism from a 95.*.*.* IP during March 2011, adding non-existent letter to alphabet (also done that in other lang articles) etc. This has been mixed with good faith additions later from "real" editors to other parts of the article, so I don't want to try to fix it myself. Anyone cares to do it? -- Vmenkov ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Evenki language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Table with general information says that the language operates in 3 scripts, and it says "(experimental)". Which script is considered experimental? 83.142.158.99 ( talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@
Isaidnoway: When citations are implemented "longhand" with <ref>{{harvnb|
, then if there's more than one reference which references the same exact thing, you're relying on people to see that and manually unite them with name=
.
Using {{
sfn}}
automates all that. If the same page is cited twice, they're automatically put together. It my eyes, that makes it easier to use, with less burden on users and less room for user error.
{{sfn|Campbell|2000|p=548}} ... {{sfn|Campbell|2000|p=548}}
is obviously simpler and more streamlined than
<ref name="Campbell 2000 548">{{harvnb|Campbell|2000|p=548}}</ref> ... <ref name="Campbell 2000 548" />
To me it just seems like an obviously better way to code references. If you would prefer to code it the other way, can you make a case as to why that method is better? Eievie ( talk) 05:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
{{sfn}}
citation style is your personal preference, which
WP:CITEVAR advises against changing it to. The
Template:Sfn page explains this as well - Note that the use (or even non-use) of these templates is an element of citation "style", and adding or removing them in articles with an established style should be consistent with that style. See WP:CITEVAR. A look at the history of the article shows that the established citation style of <ref name=>{{harvnb}}</ref>
has been used in this article for the past 14 years since May 2010. Additionally, in my experience from cleaning up
ref errors for the last 12 years, I've seen way more ref errors with editors using the {{sfn}}
citation style, as opposed to editors who use the <ref name=>{{harvnb}}</ref>
citation style.
{{
convert}}
rather than listing both measuring systems by hand and just hoping the user who added it was correct and two measurements are actually equivalent. I guess you could say that both are just a "preference" for computed rather than done by hand. But having less room for human error is a demonstrable improvement.
Eievie (
talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 May 2020 and 28 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Diaosita.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jerinaforestall.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
If "erroneously, Evenk language", why is this the name of the article? Yonidebest 00:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You show an estimate of 29,000 and one of 7,500. Neither is sourced. Please straighten this out. (Also, does the statistic that the Evenk are 92% Russian-speaking include the ones in China?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Evenk language → Evenki language – as per article and above discussion cab 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Is Solon language something different from Evenki? I don't mean to ask whether it's a language or a dialect, but whether it's not just an alternate name for Evenki, as Ethnologue says. -- Ptcamn 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently the infobox was updated with dubious information. Please cite 1) that Chinese language "orthography" is in Mongol script; 2) that the name is nonetheless written in Mongol script without following its conventions; 3) Russian language orthography/terms transcribed into Latin with macrons. If there is no reliable reference indicating these transcriptions, they should be removed. Additionally, I have corrected misleading cited text that previously indicated Mongolian was a normative script for Evenki. The cite, however, indicates the opposite: that its use is experimental. JFHJr ( ㊟) 23:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the Cyrillic name as given in a dictionary from 1994. I would give IPA or a Latin spelling but I'm not sure of the exact value of ы̄. I think Nedjalkov has it as /ɯː/, and he transcribes it to Latin as yy. Bulatova & Grenoble don't mention this sound at all. Bulatova's Russian works similarly don't give a phonetic description for the letter ы̄ (only и/ӣ --- she doesn't give IPA in her Russian works, but she describes as front high vowels), even though this letter shows up all the time even in her own examples (e.g. it's part of many morphological suffixes). So unfortunately for the readers who don't know Cyrillic there's no transcription I can give. The Latin transcriptions used in China aren't appropriate in this case because the vowel sounds are different there. Eric Baer ( talk) 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For the phonology section I'd like to point out that the dialects in China have a lot more vowels. But I'm not sure what's the best way of fitting this all into the table. Brief overview of what we're dealing with: Chaoke (himself an Evenk, from Nantun in Evenk Autonomous Banner) these days (1995, 2005) seems to be saying /a/, /ə/, /i/, /e/, /o/, /u/, /ɵ/, /ʉ/ and long versions of each. (Hu and Chaoke 1986 had even more. They also pointed out two diphthongs, but restricted to Chinese loanwords). Seong et al (2010), based on an informant from Zalantun, come up with /a/, /ə/, /i/, /o/, /ɔ/, /u/, /ʊ/ (plus long versions of all but /ʊ/).
Regarding Mongolian script for Evenki, the only work I know of where it gets used is 《鄂温克语蒙汉对照词汇》 (People's Publishing House, 1983). It's an Evenki-Mongolian-Chinese dictionary. It lists Evenki words in IPA, pinyin-style Latin, and Mongolian script. Dunno if this qualifies as a "native" orthography for Evenki, though. Incidentally, the title of that dictionary is given in Mongolian on its cover page (sorry, FreeBSD, no Mongolian Unicode support so I'm spelling it in Latin): "Eweŋki Moŋɣol Kitad Kelen-ü Qaričaɣoloɣsan Üges-ün Tegübüri" (aka "Эвэнки Монгол Хятад хэлний харьцуулсан үгсийн түүвэр" for those of you who prefer Cyrillic). So even in Mongolian, the "ŋ" followed by "k" rule gets broken ... Eric Baer ( talk) 03:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Subtle vandalism from a 95.*.*.* IP during March 2011, adding non-existent letter to alphabet (also done that in other lang articles) etc. This has been mixed with good faith additions later from "real" editors to other parts of the article, so I don't want to try to fix it myself. Anyone cares to do it? -- Vmenkov ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Evenki language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Table with general information says that the language operates in 3 scripts, and it says "(experimental)". Which script is considered experimental? 83.142.158.99 ( talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@
Isaidnoway: When citations are implemented "longhand" with <ref>{{harvnb|
, then if there's more than one reference which references the same exact thing, you're relying on people to see that and manually unite them with name=
.
Using {{
sfn}}
automates all that. If the same page is cited twice, they're automatically put together. It my eyes, that makes it easier to use, with less burden on users and less room for user error.
{{sfn|Campbell|2000|p=548}} ... {{sfn|Campbell|2000|p=548}}
is obviously simpler and more streamlined than
<ref name="Campbell 2000 548">{{harvnb|Campbell|2000|p=548}}</ref> ... <ref name="Campbell 2000 548" />
To me it just seems like an obviously better way to code references. If you would prefer to code it the other way, can you make a case as to why that method is better? Eievie ( talk) 05:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
{{sfn}}
citation style is your personal preference, which
WP:CITEVAR advises against changing it to. The
Template:Sfn page explains this as well - Note that the use (or even non-use) of these templates is an element of citation "style", and adding or removing them in articles with an established style should be consistent with that style. See WP:CITEVAR. A look at the history of the article shows that the established citation style of <ref name=>{{harvnb}}</ref>
has been used in this article for the past 14 years since May 2010. Additionally, in my experience from cleaning up
ref errors for the last 12 years, I've seen way more ref errors with editors using the {{sfn}}
citation style, as opposed to editors who use the <ref name=>{{harvnb}}</ref>
citation style.
{{
convert}}
rather than listing both measuring systems by hand and just hoping the user who added it was correct and two measurements are actually equivalent. I guess you could say that both are just a "preference" for computed rather than done by hand. But having less room for human error is a demonstrable improvement.
Eievie (
talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)