Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Cistercian numerals you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk) 15:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The article
Cistercian numerals you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Cistercian numerals for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The article
Cistercian numerals you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Cistercian numerals for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk) 16:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Buenaventura language. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Buenaventura language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kwami, we've had this kind of discussion already some years ago: please, please do not make page moves out of the blue without any kind of preceding discussion. You moved Wolaytta language to Wolaitta language without giving any reason, probably having none, as Ethnologue, Glottolog and WALS all agree on calling it Wolaytta. This kind of move is not only pointless, but actually quite disruptive, as the title of the page now gives a different spelling than the first line, and Ethiopian language names are already confusing enough as they are. Most Wolaytta people can't even agree on how to spell their own given names, so why do we need to reinforce that when at least for the language name some kind of consensus has arisen, at least in the academic literature about the language? So, I kindly ask you to redo this move, or I will have to get myself into the trouble of finding out how to do this. Cheers, Landroving Linguist ( talk) 08:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't care which spelling we use. The reason I moved it was that I created a link w the 'i' spelling, and it was red. That surprised me. I could've created a rd directly or by moving the page, and it was easier to move the page. But I certainly won't object if you move it back.
One point, though -- the 3 repositories you mention are not independent sources. Glottolog started off with Ethnologue's language inventory and then set out to correct, augment and purge it. If they leave an Ethn spelling, that can just mean that they don't care. (And they generally don't care about labels.) I believe WALS also uses ISO spellings. So they're really a single source, ISO, which is not a RS for which name is best. If Glotto and WALS go along with ISO, that may just mean that it's close enough to not bother with, not that it's the dominant spelling in the lit. (Which in this case AFAICT it's not.)
Personally, I don't think that we should use ISO, an industrial standard, to determine language-name preferences for linguistics. — kwami ( talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't move it because it didn't match the spelling of a link I made. I moved it because the most common spelling didn't exist and it needed to. I then had a choice of how to create the rd, and saw no reason not to do it by moving the article to the more common name. There are cases where I've moved an article half a dozen times to create half a dozen redirects. If anyone's ever objected, it was a trivial number compared to the thousands of page moves I've made and thousands of redirects I've created. And the choice is usually a trivial one anyway. Some of these languages, including some in Ethiopia, are so poorly covered in English that a single publication can change the dominant name or spelling in the literature. — kwami ( talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
From Most Phallic Building contest:
"Cabinet wrote that the Ypsilanti Water Tower, called "the brick dick" by locals, "is clearly the world's most phallic." [...] Located on the highest point in Ypsilanti, erection began in 1889 [...]" -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 07:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, Kwamikagami: I notice that your recent edit at Pykobjê dialect has created a reference problem with ref name= "glotto" which doesn't exist - is this from a different article? Can you please help me correct it to a real reference format ? Thanks. 09:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. That's referring to the glotto param in the info box. Someone must've disabled support. I noticed the glotto params don't generate refs any more. Must be part of that. When I get a chance I'll revert the changes to the info box. — kwami ( talk) 00:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chaungtha language. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Chaungtha language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, im jus curious why my edits of the classification of the Great Lakes Bantu languages were removed even tho i gave valid sources from as recently as 2019. Wojak6 ( talk) 06:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to prefer creating redirects using the unusual method of starting with one redirect and then moving it in sequence across all the titles for redirects to the same target. Please don't do that. It may save you a few milliseconds of your time, but it adds to the labour for anyone else who's going to deal with those redirects afterwards. If the first entry in a redirect's history is a move, then this will almost universally be an indication that the title was previously occupied by an article (it's articles that get moved, not redirects). On several occasions I've had to go from one move long entry to another, looking for that elusive article in the history that I may need to have histmerged, only to find in the end it's just redirects all the way down. Also, these redirects will end up having more than one edit in their history (because of the double-redirect fixing), which means that if the target article ever needs to be moved over one of them, this won't be possible without advanced permissions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Mike Novikoff removed all our edits from
WP:RUSTRESS and restored an old version, even if I politely asked him not to do so and be constructive:
here: The essay doesn't belong to you; it's in common space, and some other users actually asked me to edit it. One other user edited it before me, anyway, and another after me (I also included a sentence suggested by a third user). You can give a link to the old version here, and we can discuss the whole thing on the talk page. Anyway, I tried to include both points of view, and I didn't remove most of your arguments (save for the irrelevant or misleading stuff). Let's not complicate things.
— Could you please do something about it? It's very frustrating, to say the least. Thanks. —
Taurus Littrow (
talk) 05:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ibdawud would like to move Kaado language to Songhay proper or something similar. Glottolog lists it as Kaado. See Talk:Kaado language. — Sagotreespirit ( talk) 19:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kaktovik numerals you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Chipmunkdavis --
Chipmunkdavis (
talk) 14:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kaktovik numerals you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Kaktovik numerals for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Chipmunkdavis --
Chipmunkdavis (
talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kaktovik numerals you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Kaktovik numerals for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Chipmunkdavis --
Chipmunkdavis (
talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mathematics Barnstar | |
For getting Kaktovik numerals to good article status. Thank you Akrasia25 ( talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) |
You might want to refresh yourself on WP:BRD. That image has been in the article for 8 years. You removed it. I objected to your reason and restored it. Please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than continuing to remove it. Meters ( talk) 04:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
the letter t is not a consonant, it's a letter. I disagreed. Meters ( talk) 04:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Hulmem. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
KBRW (AM), but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
hulmem (
talk) 22:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
South Scandinavian languages. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#South Scandinavian languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a disagreement between me and another user about the use of the Help:IPA/Latin key on the articles Manlia gens and Romulus. Thought you might perhaps be interested since you've contributed to that key in the past. Libhye ( talk) 21:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
On 25 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kaktovik numerals, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kaktovik numerals (pictured) are an iconic, base-20 numeral system created by the Alaskan Iñupiat, with shapes that visually indicate the numbers being represented? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kaktovik numerals. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Kaktovik numerals), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Karipúna do Uaçá language. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Karipúna do Uaçá language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
KittenKlub (
talk) 12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, please can you explain your edit summary "still need pan-UK" in the Snooker article. I'm working on the lead section at the moment. I don't understand what you mean by "pan-UK". My best guess is that you are talking about the spread of snooker from the UK into other parts of the world, like Asia? Or is it a language thing? Cheers, Rodney Baggins ( talk) 08:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As the second most contributor to the article this may be of interest to you. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baháʼí Faith in Chad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baháʼí Faith in Chad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Smkolins ( talk) 14:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, I am a specialist who works in this field. Nowadays, Southeast Asian linguists do not use tone sticks to mark tones. This is something that only old-fashioned Sinologists do now. If in doubt, you can e-mail linguists working on SE Asian languages or take a look at STEDT.
This is the equivalent of converting IAST into IPA on all Indo-Aryan articles, Semitic transcriptions into IPA, or especially turning combining accents in African languages into tone sticks.
Can we get community consensus on this first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages? Lingnanhua ( talk) 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Lingnanhua:
It's fine to have specialist, walled-garden transcriptions, but for general use we have a long-standing consensus to use IPA. Wikipedia is, after all, a global resource, not intended just for Sinologists and SE Asianists. We certainly should never use local conventions without explaining to the reader what they are! You'll notice that for IAST transcription of Indic languages, they're tagged as IAST and linked to a key (or at least they should be). The problem is not just that the digits are not IPA, but that they are undefined. '3', for example, might be high pitch, mid pitch or low pitch, and which it is varies from language to language and even from author to author. In the languages I've worked on, for example, '1' is HIGH and '5' is LOW. It's very confusing to try to read something where all the tone numbers are the inverse of what they're "supposed" to mean. Chao tone letters don't have that problem. As for combining diacritics, those are also IPA and unambiguous, so there's no problem using them.
What you're arguing for is more like Americanists insisting on using Americanist phonetic notation rather than IPA, or insisting that geographic articles use Imperial rather than metric measures. Sure, such local conventions are acceptable, but they should never be the default, not even in articles about the USA. — kwami ( talk) 01:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that's a reasonable approach. — kwami ( talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
They seem to be scattered throughout Category:Wikipedia multilingual support templates. — kwami ( talk) 01:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Your DYK hook about the Kaktovik numerals system created by the Alaskan Iñupiat drew 9,264 page views (772 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 ( talk) 18:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not know what you were attempting to articulate to me with your comments on my Talk page - who is "He"? - but it is clear that you did not bother to read the cited reference before you reverted me - that reference was not all about genus Canis.
As for your comment of "...your 'translation' is obviously nonsense...", and your edit summary of "...no evidence for obviously false translation..." (a) I refer you to WP:CIVIL, and (b) it was never my 'translation' because it was from the cited reference which you did not check.
As for your edit summary of "...It's not Canis! Did you notice the genus is different? Aenocyon does not mean "wolf"!...", please see my user page and then you can form your own opinion as to whether I know the difference.
Nor do I understand why an article on a Late Pleistocene North American canid on the English version of Wikipedia benefits from a lesson in ancient Greek. William Harris (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
VeryRarelyStable. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Enochian have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. Thank you.
—
VeryRarelyStable 07:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami,
I noticed that this map you created, which is used on many different articles throughout Wikipedia, is missing the island of Mindoro. Would you be able to correct it?
Red Panda 25 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
(Aug. 5, 2020) On July 3, 2020, the president of Montenegro, Milo ÄukanoviÄ, signed Decree No. 01-1337 / 2 on the Promulgation of the Law on the Same-Sex Life Partnership. The president issued the decree two days after the Skupština Crne Gore (the Parliament of Montenegro) passed the Law on the Same-Sex Life Partnership (Law No. 868 of July 1, 2020.)
Forty-two lawmakers in the 81-seat Parliament backed the law, which required 41 votes for passage. Members of the Parliament from the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS); the Social Democrats; the Liberal Party; and the opposition party, the Social Democratic Party, comprised the votes for passing the legislation. Five MP’s voted against and the rest claimed during the June 30 debate that the law was being imposed by the “world Satanists” and abstained from voting.
The law enters into force on the eighth day after its publication in the Official Gazette of Montenegro, but the law’s provisions stipulate that its implementation (the issuing of certificates of partnership, etc.) will begin one year after it enters into force. (Art. 76.)
Naraht ( talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: I understand if you are busy, but judging from your contributions, you may be interested. Wretchskull ( talk) 10:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami. It was easier for me to revert all three edits at once, sorry about that, but I feel I owe you a longer explanation: when it comes to the language of Croats (Hr-VA-ti), stress is indeed on the thrilled R (HRRR-vatski) and that was not a typo. The four dialects are more than accents, but you're right that they should be listed with commas, not slashes. Thanks, Ponor ( talk) 20:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I had one question. If a voiced consonant, say /b/, is said to be ‘slightly voiced’, then should I represent it as [b̥᪽] or would a simple [b̥] (without the parentheses) be fine? [For more details, this is a phenomenon in Standard Bengali in which initial and final voiced stops are slightly voiced, while full voicing occurs in intervocalic positions.] Thank you so much for your attention! — inqilābī ‹ inqilāb· zinda· bād› 01:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, is there a source that mentions the name of the Tomui/Tomul River? I need to see if the correct spelling is Tomui River or Tomul River. The Cebuano Wikipedia has Tomul River, but the Madang language articles here have "Tomui River." — Sagotreespirit ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog ( talk) 10:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, in this edit you introduced an Sfn reference "Bender 2020" without defining it. This adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, as well as making it impossible for anyone to look up the reference. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Help added IPA and Pronunciation respelling key. Thanks you. Vnosm ( talk) 02:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've found some edits by you from about two years ago fixing duplicate tone bars; since search queries like
Special:Search/insource:/˥˥/ do return results, maybe you could do a new run now? Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a very delicate time right now. Before making any edits, may I ask that you carefully go through the peer review, the GA nomination, and the subsequent peer review. Some things you did were open to discussion. Others were not and I do not have the time to illucidate them individually. Serendi pod ous 10:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Kwamikagami
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Steve Quinn, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Yongnan languages, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Steve Quinn}}
. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop undoing references to the recently passed state constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage in Yucatan state. Every credible news source reporting on the issue says that the law allows same-sex couples to marry. That was the whole point of the amendment. One tweet from a random person does not discredit all of those sources. Please only make changes if a consensus emerges that this is incorrect, or if you can cite a credible source -- a news article or the government of Yucatan -- that says otherwise.
This article notes that the constitution takes precedence over all other laws, and that editing the Family Code is a mere formality: https://www.yucatan.com.mx/merida/en-espera-de-que-publiquen-cambio
Note that the Yucatan state congress' official twitter account tweeted that it passed a same-sex marriage law. [1] This is clearly more authoritative than your twitter user.
More sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
References
There are other sources that contradict yours at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico#Yucatan. I'll copy over the first of your refs, but should present your case there. — kwami ( talk) 04:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand shogi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Slimy asparagus ( talk) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sort this the fuck out. Wikipedia's article on Ceres has to say that Ceres is a dwarf planet. Because every other relevant, up to date reference guide does. The IAU have officially declared it a dwarf planet. It is the IAU's job to rule on issues of nomenclature. As long as that is the case, Ceres is a dwarf planet. I don't care if it isn't hydrostatic equilibrium, was in hydrostatic equlibrium, or is a banana fruit cake. Put a paragraph-long note at the end explaining the caveats if you must, but sort this out. I will not have your egomaniacal crusade derail four months of work and my first chance at a featured article in 10 years. Serendi pod ous 01:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I can cite one relevant source: the IAU. How many sources does your position require? Ten? A hundred? Hydrostatic equilibrium depends on chemical makeup, temperature, tidal history, and a hundred other variables. To say precisely when an object is is hydrostatic equilibrium is a fool's errand and really only serves to obscure the issue. And I think you know that. Just like I'm pretty sure Alan Stern knows he's obscuring the issue when he says that Jupiter hasn't cleared its neighborhood. Serendi pod ous 02:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The IAU isn't a reliable source on a term the IAU invented and defined? Serendi pod ous 02:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've found some edits by you from about two years ago fixing duplicate tone bars; since search queries like
Special:Search/insource:/˥˥/ do return results, maybe you could do a new run now? Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how and where did you get these names from? The WGSPN page you linked in both articles is invalid and no official sources have announced these names as far as I am aware. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the poster's definition looks like it is just "is it at least the size of Mimas". But come to think of it, differentiated but not-round Vesta should allow one to make the same argument as that for Pluto. Pluto argues you don't need to clear the neighbourhood to have interesting planetary geology; Vesta argues that you don't even need to be round anymore. ;)
Although maybe this opens the Pandora's box to planet Phoebe and quite possibly a whole bunch of large M- and S-type asteroids. Well, they are the largest remnants of bodies that presumably were differentiated before they got whacked.
(I'm obviously not seriously advocating such a definition!) :) Double sharp ( talk) 08:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:!Haunu.ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:=Ka'gara.ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Following the Grundy et al. assessment, that means that the only TNO moon likely to be a "satellite planet" is Charon, right? Since Dysnomia and Vanth are in that transition range, they're quite dark, and everything else is smaller. Double sharp ( talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I wonder how Salacia could be this dark (i.e. probably no resurfacing) and still be dense enough. Did it begin to collapse and just never finish? Double sharp ( talk) 14:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
The moves seem a little premature. It seems to be motivated by one article (is it peer-reviewed?) that cites one netizen anecdote in each case. Is that really enough to justify the moves? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 08:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the provisional designations for Ceres and Pluto you added: I get that they're at the JPL Small-Body Database Browser, but surely they must be anachronisms? Ceres couldn't have had one when it was discovered, since there wasn't even a distinction between major and minor planets back then. And Pluto was thought on discovery to be Lowell's Planet X. The MPC does not list a provisional designation for Pluto (though it does for other named bodies like Eris); for Ceres, it lists what appear to be two rediscoveries from later (1899 OF, 1943 XB). Double sharp ( talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This scheme has been extended to pre-1925 discoveries--such designations are indicated by the replacement of the initial digit of the year by the letter `A'. Thus, A904 OA is the first object designated that was discovered in the second half of July 1904.
So, it's basically a retroactive scheme. (Found it while trying to find info about the Ceres designations.) In which case A801 AA makes some sense to include, and certainly more sense than the mistakes A899 OF and 1943 XB.
Still no luck about 1930 BM for Pluto, though. Double sharp ( talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
If our position is that Quaoar is as much a DP as Ceres is, by general scientific consensus, then it seems odd that Quaoar's article is at the MP number ( 50000 Quaoar) while Ceres' gets parenthetical disambiguation ( Ceres (dwarf planet)). Maybe Wikipedia:Natural disambiguation suggests it should be 1 Ceres instead. And likewise 136199 Eris like 225088 Gonggong.
I guess Haumea, Makemake, and Pluto are still primary topics. But if we allow those exceptions, then there may be consistency questions about things like 117 Lomia where the minor planet is already the primary topic. OTOH I can't see a move to 134340 Pluto as getting any consensus, even though in practice the article would use just the name (like 6 Hebe being just called Hebe in the article). Or maybe we should just accept the exceptions since they are well-known? Or perhaps just Pluto can be the exception? Or perhaps we should just leave things alone as they work now and Ceres FAC is still ongoing? Double sharp ( talk) 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I started a move discussion at Talk:Minor planet designation. — kwami ( talk) 07:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I get Eris, Haumea, and Makemake (used by NASA that one time) and Sedna (made it into Unicode), but is there use of that Gonggong symbol yet? Double sharp ( talk) 08:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Endlich bin ich noch auf eine schickliche Benennung und Bezeichnung unser neuen Planeten bedacht gewesen. In der oberwehnten Abhandlung habe ich, da wir doch nun einmal bey der Mythologie bleiben müssen, bereits den Namen Uranus vorgeschlagen. Uranus wird bekanntlich für den Vater des Saturns, so wie dieser für den Vater des Jupiters gehalten. Ich bemerke auch mit Vergnügen, dass verschiedene Astronomen diese Benennung billigen. Unter andern schrieb mir neulich Herr Prof. Lichtenberg: „Ich denke der Name Uranus ist gut gewählt. Ich habe einmal im Scherz Asträa vorgeschlagen, weil man sagt, sie sey (und es ist leider! in gewissen Verstande so) aus der Welt gewichen und dem Himmel zugeflogen. Aber freylich ist Virgo schon eine Asträa. Ich werde in den hiesigen Kalendern etwas davon unter einen eigenen Artikel mit dem Namen Uranus einrücken lassen, er wird auch ins Französische übersetzt.“
Wegen eines Zeichens schrieb mir Herr Inspector Köhler: „Sie haben mich befragt, was man dem neuen Planeten für ein Zeichen geben soll. Ohnstreitig das von der Platina del Pinto, * Nur Schade, dass dieses zur Zeit noch kein allgemein angenommenes Zeichen hat. ** Lassen Sie ein Chymiker urtheilen, ob folgendes schicklich und den Eigenschaften und Bestandtheilen der Platina angemessen sey: ⛢ oder ⛢. Letztere Lage würde ich ihm deswegen geben, um solches nicht mit dem Zeichen der ♀ zu verwechseln etc.“
Die Platina, oder das weisse Gold, ist, wie die Chymiker finden, mit Eisen vermischt, also wäre das vorgeschlagene Zeichen derselben angemessen, und könnte zugleich sehr gut zur Bezeichnung unsers neuen Wandelsterns dienen. Nur deucht mir, dass die senkrechte Stellung desselben ⛢ dem Auge in der Reihe der übrigen Planetenzeichen besser gefallen würde, als die liegende, und dass es dennoch von den Zeichen des ♂ und der ♁ hinlänglich genug zu unterscheiden wäre.
* Eben diesen Gedanken habe ich schon ohnlängst gleichfalls gehabt.
** Der Hr. Graf von Sickingen hat in seiner Abhandlung von der Platina, diesem neuen Metall das Kometenzeichen (ein Stern mit einem Schweif) gegeben.
Finally I have also considered a proper name and symbol for our new planet. In the above-mentioned treatise I already suggested the name Uranus, since we must stick to mythology. Uranus is known to be the father of Saturn, just as Saturn is considered the father of Jupiter. I also note with pleasure that various astronomers endorse this designation. Among others, Prof. Lichtenberg recently wrote to me: "I think the name Uranus is well-chosen. In jest I once suggested Astraea, for it is said (and alas! for certain intellects it is so) that she has left the world and flown to heaven. But of course Virgo is already an Astraea. I will have it inserted in the local calendars under a separate article[?] with the name Uranus; it will also be translated into French."
Herr Inspector Köhler wrote to me about a symbol: "You asked me what kind of symbol the new planet should be given. Without a doubt that of the platina del Pinto [little silver of the Pinto river].* Just a shame that this does not have a generally accepted symbol at the moment.** Let a chemist judge whether the following is appropriate for the properties and components of the platinum: ⛢ or ⛢. I would give it the latter situation so as not to confuse it with the sign of the ♀ etc. "
Platinum, or white gold, is, as the chemists find, mixed with iron, so the suggested symbol for it would be appropriate, and at the same time could very well serve to designate our new wandering star. Only it seems to me that the vertical position of the same ⛢ would please the eye better in the row of the other planetary signs than the horizontal one, and that it would still be sufficiently distinguishable from the symbols ♂ and ♁.
* I have also had this same thought for a long time.
** In his treatise on platinum, Count von Sickingen gave this new metal the comet's sign (a star with a tail).
Any astrological use for Quaoar and Orcus yet, BTW? Double sharp ( talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
What's going to be our cut-off for astronomical symbol? I ask because previously we had only Haumea, Makemake, and Eris among the new ones (because NASA used them), but you mentioned Sedna in the text. Also we now have the symbols in the infoboxes for Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, and Gonggong as well (IIRC you added Sedna and Gonggong, and I added Orcus and Quaoar based on precedent), matching the idea that they've become more or less standard among those who actually bother with symbols anymore.
The symbol for Vesta in Unicode is, IIRC, a form that was only ever used for astrology, but we list that codepoint anyway in the astronomical symbols table. Sedna is in Unicode too, but not yet the others. And anyway the symbols for Ceres through Vesta are probably orders of magnitude more used in astrology than astronomy nowadays. So I can buy adding the TNOs that appear in Astrolog to some extent, but then again, no known astronomical use yet? Double sharp ( talk) 03:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at this font. Looks like they crammed everything they could in there, including some duplicates. They have Varuna and Interamnia, but even they don't have Salacia. — kwami ( talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Something I wondered re List of natural satellites: do you have the source for it being numbered Makemake I already? Over there it is, but at Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons it is not. (And I guess that list ought to have the other DPs added, but maybe to avoid a profusion of colours all the dwarfs should get the same one?) Double sharp ( talk) 15:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Making Pluto continue to stand out on its own, without larger Eris, feels a bit too close to the pre-2006 situation for my taste (in the sense of giving Pluto a planet-like status by itself among TNOs). Pluto and Haumea seems less bad. Or perhaps I should just go and find more colours. XD Double sharp ( talk) 15:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It's quite strange to see Finno-Ugric peoples now being redirected to Finno-Ugric countries, since "Finno-Ugric peoples" is a very well established term in ethnography (no less so than, say, Slavic peoples or Turkic peoples), and the non-linguistic characteristics shared by certain Finno-Ugric peoples were studied extensively as well. On the other hand, "Finno-Ugric countries" is a rarely used term (as it's not a political union or anything like that, and Pan-Finno-Ugrism is a rather fringe ideology). Finstergeist ( talk) 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, we give all TNOs as accepted DPs to Salacia. I'm wondering, though, if it's really right that we include Salacia. Has Grundy yet called Salacia a DP? In the Grundy source you gave me, that finds out its higher density, Salacia is still just called DP-sized. So should we really give it the same weight as Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus as a DP if even that paper doesn't accept it? It seems even weaker than Orcus as a candidate. Orcus is at the lower end of the transition range, and its density is unimpressive (it could easily be 1.4 g/cm3 within current uncertainties), but at least it is bright. Salacia is below the lower end, has the same unimpressive density, and is not even bright. Actually it is the darkest large TNO.
Or is the idea that objects below the lower end (900 km) of the transition scale can be included if something suggests that they might be DPs (so Salacia has its density possibly in its favour, but so far 2002 MS4 has nothing known, and it'd go in if we found its density to be high)? If so, then I'd point out that 2013 FY27 at albedo 0.17 is brighter than Varda and getting pretty close to Orcus at 0.23. If a body initially in the transition range managed to collapse due to some weird thermal history, then it should be smaller now, having closed up a lot of pore space, surely? In back-of-the-envelope fashion, a 900-km diameter body with 50% porosity has total solid volume about the same as a 720-km diameter solid body, which is not far from 2013 FY27. Double sharp ( talk) 10:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Just a thought: even among the round planemo moons, 16 out of 19 actually have diameter greater than 1000 km. Tethys, the smallest of the sixteen, has a diameter of about 1066 km. The only stragglers are Enceladus (504 km), Miranda (472 km), and Mimas (396 km) – yet between Miranda and Mimas lies Proteus (420 km). Not to mention that Miranda is so battered that it looks like it was badly glued together after having been broken. Therefore, I have to wonder if the 400 km figure that came from Mimas is even valid for icy satellites and bodies with such a density. Naturally the transition for them should occur at something significantly lower than 900 km, but it seems eminently possible that shape at ~500 km radius even for very icy bodies depends a lot on history or at least distance from the Sun (comparing Enceladus with Miranda, or Mimas with Proteus). And I suspect that if Saturn had preserved a Galilean-like satellites arrangement (so Mimas and Enceladus did not exist, and the only round-ish body in this range was heavily battered Miranda), we would've been a lot slower to assume a 400 km threshold, and may not have ever thought of it at all. Double sharp ( talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
That symbol was changed to the mathematical operator because the earth symbol as a subscript is not legible on many systems. It appears as an illegible blob. Tarl N. ( discuss) 05:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I've just noticed that in April you redirected the page 'Ngunawal language' to 'Burragorang language' and I'm very curious to know why. I've never heard of a 'Burragorang language', apart from an odd, unsourced, mention in Dixon (2002) that seems to suggest it as an alternative name for both Gandangara and Ngunawal, and of course the use to refer to Gandangara people living in the Burragorang Valley (late 19th and early 20th centuries). I can't see any justification for it having its own page, let alone taking over the Ngunawal page. —— Dougg ( talk) 23:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Mathews published separate grammars for the Gundungurra and Ngunawal D3 but both of these grammars are drawn from the same material in his notebooks headed 'Gundungurra' (Mathews 1901 and 1904, in Eades 1976:6).
Based on his analysis of pronoun forms, Koch concludes that Gandangara (S60) and Ngunawal D3 are dialects of the same language (2011:18).
Glottolog and Koch are quite correct that the two varieties are very similar, were certainly mutually intelligible and no more different than, say, Australian English and General American English. But the differences are very important to the two groups, who consider themselves quite distinct peoples (again, much as with Australia and the USA). And as these are technical, linguistic uses of 'language' and 'dialect' I think it's best to have a page for each of Ngunawal and Gandangarra, and simply to state that they are very similar, and were most likely highly mutually intelligible. Not every level in linguistic classification schemes should get a page on WP... I note that there's no WP page on Macro-English (a Glottolog term). And I can't see any reason to have a page 'Burragorang language' as there is no Australian language by that name; as far as I know (from Jim Smith's work) it was only used to refer to a group of Gandangarra who lived (post-contact) on a reserve in the Burragorang Valley. Dougg ( talk) 06:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw ( here) that you edited Levantine Arabic in the past.
We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox on the talk page. As you are experienced it would be great to have your opinion.
Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 ( talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not going to read all that. It looks like the dispute has narrowed down to what's in the 'states' parameter of the info box -- is that correct? If so, I'd start a new thread so that ppl can follow what the issue is. If there's more to it, what do you consider the last good version of the article? — kwami ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@ A455bcd9: Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can. — kwami ( talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't know why the next sentence was deleted "Kisikongo is not the mother language that carries the Kongo (i.e. Kikongo) Language Cluster". This sentence summarizes the studies (see references). Somebody040404 ( talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The map on Kikongo shows that Kisikongo is the mother tongue, that the other variants of Kikongo are based from Kisikongo, this is false because the Kongo cultural unit existed before the foundation of Kongo dia ntotila by Lukeni lua Nimi and Kongo dia ntotila was multilingual thus Kikongo of Mbanza Kongo (Kisikongo) was not the only spoken language, The name "Kikongo" is actually used for a cluster of related languages, including Kintandu, Kiyombe, Kimanyanga, Tsiladi/Ciladi, Civili, Kindibu, Kikunyi, Kibeembe, Tchibinda, Kisolongo, Kizombo, Kisingombe, Boko ´s Kikongo, Kihaangala, Kinsundi/Kisundi, etc. This is the reason why I have added the three sources that evoke Kikongo, the archaeology that has been done in some places of the ancient Kingdom of Kongo, etc. Somebody040404 ( talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, by mother language I mean Proto-Kikongo. There are people Who think Kisikongo is the Proto-Kikongo. My bad I thought "mother language" also had the same meaning as "langue mère" in French. Yes, They understand each other but not so well (examples : Civili and Kimanianga speakers). Kituba already has its article. Let it stay like that because Kituba is grammarically different from kikongo varieties. It's a good solution to merge all these articles (Kongo language and Kongo languages) into the main Kongo language article. "it's probably best to have separate language articles, even if they all identify as Bakongo" This solution is also good but there are problems : Kikongo varieties and Kikongo ya leta (Kituba) are less and less spoken in Kongo Central even in the Republic of the Congo some Kikongo varieties are less and less spoken. Kisikongo is considered as standard Kikongo in Angola. In Cabinda it is Fyote. Two Kikongo varieties are used in Angolan TV news : Kisikongo and Fyote. Plus all the Kongos taken to the Americas came from all parts of the Kingdom. Somebody040404 ( talk) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Yes, Yaka and Suku should not be under Kongo even if those in Angola consider themselves as Bakongo but those in DRC don't consider themselves as Bakongo. No, langue-mère in French means the proto language. Yes, Vili were part of Kingdom of Loango but they consider themselves as Loangos and Kongos. In the Kingdom of Loango there were Vili, Yombe, Kugni (or Kunyi), Lumbu, Babongo (Forest people or pygmies) and Punu. Vili, Yombe and Kugni consider themselves as Bakongo. Lumbu, Babongo and Punu don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Kingdom of Loango also had influence among Orungu people in Gabon but Orungu people don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Woyo consider themselves as Ngoyos and Bakongo, it's the same with Kakongo. It might be better to classify as follows : North Kikongo, West Kikongo, East Kikongo, Central Kikongo and South Kikongo https://llacan.cnrs.fr/fichiers/nigercongo/fichiers/Bostoen_KikongoNC.pdf. The name Kongo languages is better. Somebody040404 ( talk) 07:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I misspoke! I just wanted to suggest that we can use this as a basis for classifying kikongo varieties according to their inter-comprehensibility, the localization also plays a role : North western or west : Vili, Yombe, Woyo, Ibinda, Kunyi…
North eastern or North: Ladi (Lari), Kikongo of Boko, Haangala…
The classification on the inter comprehensibility deserves a reflection.
Somebody040404 ( talk) 23:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Words without consonants (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for creating a separate article for that main term! I was always annoyed that a "Finnic peoples" article was missing. Good job. -- Blomsterhagens ( talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Qahveh Khaneh Sign Language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
No sourcing. Unsourced claim. No language ISO code. Not notable.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qahveh Khaneh Sign Language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I guess we're not counting Triton in that chart, because it would totally overwhelm everything (I just added some text about that, because the rest of the article agrees that Triton is irregular). But I wonder how it should be treated in the first place, since Triton's story is probably quite a bit different from that of most irregulars. It's not even irregular by the 0.05 Hill radius requirement, and Nereid is borderline: there's a reason why often they are excluded by a reference to "normal" irregular satellites.
Also, I find it a bit odd that Triton is so commonly considered irregular, but not Iapetus, which actually has a better claim by its orbit (being near the 0.05 Hill radius requirement). In fact, by the orbital criterion, Luna should be irregular too. So it kind of suggests that some people are thinking of the term as meaning "captured", rather than being about the orbit. OTOH Amalthea is probably captured too, because if it were a primordial satellite it would be as dehydrated as Io, which it isn't. Yet no one seems to call it irregular. Might be interesting to do a literature search on definitions. Double sharp ( talk) 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Re Neptune's tilt, I found it! :) Double sharp ( talk) 22:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I added it to geophysical definition of planet, since it's basically the same concept with a different name.
That said,
interesting to see written "Roundness" can be used to define the subset of bodies for which gravitational forces exceed material strength. A "world" is an apt name for such bodies, and this classification need not be in conflict with the dynamics-based taxonomy of planets and satellites.
I have to wonder where this leaves objects like Iapetus that freeze out of equilibrium (especially since they note that planetary material strength depends on temperature), as well as those with significant tidal heating like Enceladus.
Double sharp (
talk) 18:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The IAU has not formally defined satellites, which are informally understood to be celestial bodies that orbit planets, dwarf planets, or asteroids. Satellites to planets will have little or no impact on the classification if the satellite-to-planet mass ratio is low. At higher values of the mass ratio, satellites may affect the classification because it is the sum of the component masses in a bound system that determines the ability to clear an orbital zone. The terminology could in principle differentiate between two-body planets (where the sum of the masses exceeds Mclear, but the individual component masses do not) and double planets (where the individual masses both exceed Mclear).So Earth–Luna is a double planet, fair enough. Except that if you plug in the numbers for this, you find that Titan would have Π = 1.40, and that the Galilean moons would have 1.90 (Io), 1.02 (Europa), 3.15 (Ganymede), and 2.30 (Callisto). So if we take it literally that these values clear 1, we get Saturn–Titan as an extremely lopsided double planet and Jupiter–Io–Europa–Ganymede–Callisto as an extremely lopsided quintuple planet. But of course, values near 1 are not really decisive.
My main worry about those is what line we could use to justify keeping exactly these but not Pholus and the third Pluto, which are in both Unicode and Astrolog. (Did you mean to restore them in the infoboxes as well, or just the body of the article?) I like them and would like to have a complete set of likely-DP symbols, but I don't know what line we could use to justify stopping here and not going on with all those others. Double sharp ( talk) 19:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The best excuse I can think of for such symbols to call them just "symbols" or "planetary symbols" in their articles, instead of "astronomical symbols". But, again: it then becomes pretty hard to justify why to have Sedna but not to have Pholus when neither its symbol nor Sedna's seems to have any astronomical usage. Double sharp ( talk) 19:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I made a try for that kind of thing at list of planemos. The other dwarf symbols are back, but now they are always called "symbols" instead of "astronomical symbols", and the note makes it clear that they are at this point mostly astrological symbols. (After all, Ceres today pretty much only gets its symbol among astrologers.) Double sharp ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm happy now. Astronomical symbol still has only strictly astronomical symbols, but points to astrological symbol for the cases where something is different. (Maybe a return to this version would also be all right, minus the alternate Eris.) And I cut astrological symbol down to the relatively standard ones (so no Salacia etc.). For articles, I returned to the cut-off we had before this week, but let Pholus and Nessus through for the reasons you said, and also Vesta, Astraea, and Hygiea's astrological symbols as they're frankly more common than the astronomical ones at this point. (And anyway Ceres and Pallas are mostly astrological now). The extra Plutos are text-only, since they are astrological only, there's a much more common astronomical symbol, and it's not even Anglophone astrologers who usually use them. Eris gets only one symbol, since only one actually ever appeared in astronomy, and it's also the same one that is in Astrolog. Planet and dwarf planet have the symbols, though kind of as ornaments.
Re Uranus. Is the H+o symbol really so rare now? Double sharp ( talk) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not defendable for WP (until any use is found), but my favourite is definitely his Charon astrological symbol. The floating orb evokes both that of Pluto's bident symbol and how Pluto would look in Charon's night sky and vice versa, thanks to the mutual tidal locking: a great motionless orb. It has the moon symbol (since it's a moon), but lying on its side it evokes Charon's boat. It's truly inspired. I know it's already one of the Pluto alternatives, but for me it is definitely far better as a Charon symbol. :)
That said, for the other planemo moons, I wish he had tried for some sort of evocation of the mythology rather than just initial letters. Or at least a larger nod to astronomy than the circle representing Titan's atmosphere. Double sharp ( talk) 18:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh well, I suppose one could argue that Earth-Luna and Pluto-Charon are really "double planets" (or double worlds). In which case it makes more sense that the other moons get symbols very clearly based on their parent planets. But I'd still like a unique derivation for Titan, though probably still with Saturn's hook if we follow this logic. Double sharp ( talk) 07:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Can't help but notice that some other WP's seem to be taking them straight from Wikidata, e.g. Russian and Romanian Wikipedias. But I guess it is up to their own editorial choice. Double sharp ( talk) 10:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on whether Ixion makes the cut, since you added it? Double sharp ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of Ophiuchus for the constellation symbols? It's already there among Moskowitz's, but it has an earlier origin in sidereal astrology IIRC. Double sharp ( talk) 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It's in L2/09-027. It was adopted as an emoji], as part of the Japanese Carrier Set. It didn't have a dedicated proposal. — kwami ( talk) 17:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Jewitt and Sheppard argued in 2002: Several of the outer planet satellites are similar to Varuna in both size and density. For example, Saturnian satellite SIII Tethys has density ρ = 1210 ± 160 kg m−3 and is 524 ± 5 km in radius (Smith et al. 1982). The Uranian satellite UII Umbriel has density 1440 ± 280 m−3 and radius 595 ± 10 km (Smith et al. 1986). Even the much larger and, presumably, self-compressed object Iapetus (radius 730 ± 10 km) has a low density of only 1160 ± 90 kg m−3 (Smith et al. 1982). Internal porosity (due to the granular structure of the constituent materials) may account for the low densities of these satellites while simultaneously allowing rock fractions 0.28 ≤ ψ ≤ 0.66 (Kossacki and Leliwa-Kopystynski 1993). Within the uncertainties, these bodies all have densities consistent with that derived here for Varuna. Unlike Varuna, they are nearly spherical in shape, but this is because the satellites are tidally locked with rotation periods measured in days, not hours, and the centripetal accelerations are consequently very small. If rotating with Varuna’s angular momentum, they would adopt prolate body shapes and display large rotational lightcurves.
Varuna turned out not to be that large, but very interestingly, back then Tethys and Umbriel were thought to be denser than they actually are. If even Umbriel might not be solid, while orbiting a giant planet, I begin to suspect that the number of dwarf planets in the solar system might be hilariously small. But I'd like something more recent (not sure how much we could've learnt without a probe though). Double sharp ( talk) 17:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if Charon and Dysnomia should be included for comparison, since presumably being a TNO satellite is not actually that different from being an actual TNO. Do you have the values from this? Seems Dysnomia is a lot less dense than Eris. Double sharp ( talk) 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, re above about Haumea: true. It would kind of be "New Horizons 2" in a way, but I wonder if this wouldn't just harm the idea by making it seem like boring old hat "we've already done that". (Though I mourn the original concept which could have had an ice giant flyby. And possibly a UX25 flyby!)
Alas, I won't be surprised if anything beyond Jupiter is going to be just dreams for a while. But at least one giant-planet satellite system is way better than none. :) Double sharp ( talk) 22:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Ӏу. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#Ӏу until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
List of digraphs. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#List of digraphs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwami. I want to nominate
Czech language for FAC but
this edit you made could be problematic inasmuch as it contradicts "The phoneme represented by the letter ř (capital Ř) is often considered unique to Czech
" in the phonology section which is cited (to a 70 year old grammar book, so YMMV). Do you know of a source which discusses the raised alveolar fricative trill and its occurrence as a phoneme? –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 11:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Since the first asteroid inside Venus' orbit just got named (
594913 ʼAylóʼchaxnim), I'd like to ask how its name should be pronounced. Original naming citation is
here: The name 'Ayló'chaxnim means “Venus Girl” in the language of the Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians whose ancestral lands included Palomar Mountain.
Double sharp (
talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Found old sources that "Elutcax" or "Aylucha" is "Venus". So the -nim would seem to be the "Girl" part. — kwami ( talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The 2nd glottal stop is not normally written, as it's predictable. — kwami ( talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
However, the name Vulcan had already been used for a hypothetical planet between Mercury and the Sun. Although this planet was found not to exist, the term “vulcanoid” remains attached to any asteroid existing inside the orbit of Mercury, and the name Vulcan could not be accepted for one of Pluto’s satellites (also, Vulcan does not fit into the underworld mythological scheme).So apparently Vulcan is sort of regarded as "taken", but it doesn't explicitly say that it's being reserved for the first vulcanoid (though this does make me suspect that it is). Double sharp ( talk) 22:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I compiled a few recent-ish sources unequivocally calling those bodies DPs without qualification at User:Double sharp/Dwarf planets. It seems from Google Scholar searching that usually people stop at Orcus. Except Runyon, who apparently insists that everything over 400 km diameter is a DP ( example), and then proceeds to ignore even this very lax criterion and list Lempo as a DP (see Fig. 1). But he's clearly an outlier there.
For an explicit statement of the boundary, Barr and Schwamb call Orcus and up "dwarf planets" without qualification, but does not even call Salacia and Varda dwarf planet-sized. For them, they are just "mid-sized bodies", and imply that the lower limit for that is radius less than ~400 km, mentioning UX25. (Well, Varda was already known to be smaller than that, so tilde presumably means it's a rough estimate. But Sheppard et al. also think this radius is some kind of threshold between smaller and larger TNOs when discussing FY27, which they call a DP. I suppose that means that there's a transition going on from about 350 to 450 km.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Of the trans Neptunian objects, several of the largest bodies have been included alongside the planets Pluto and Charon. This includes the remaining IAU dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, and Haumea as well as Orcus, Salacia, Quaoar, Gonggong, and Sedna. Including these objects and not more was a subjective choice, given the relative confidence that these objects are large and massive enough to have spheroidal shapes. While there may be hundreds and perhaps thousands of trans-Neptunian planets, there is reason to believe that most candidate objects with diameters below 1000 km may be too porous to have reached shapes near equilibrium, given their low densities. This means even trans-Neptunian objects as large as Orcus and Salacia may not be planets. Regardless, more observations are required of these distant, poorly understood objects and the table is certainly open to revision.That said, while that's pretty reasonable, I find his inclusion of Uranus XV Puck really odd. (Yes, it's pretty spheroidal, but at that size, it is surely a coincidence. Soon we could argue for Saturn XXXII Methone to be a planet...) So, I am not sure how seriously I should take this, especially given the geophysical definition he starts off with (it's the one with the entertainingly bad wording
spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid).
The relatively high densities derived for Varda (>1.5 g cm−3) when we adopt the McLaurin solutions 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with low porosity for an object in this size range, which is pretty interesting given what Grundy et al. wrote about Varda's size range. I suspect that the general opinion of objects around 700-900 km is in flux and that there isn't really a consensus about whether this is large enough to mostly collapse out porosity. I guess we just need more data.
While the first point provides a fairly clear and objective condition (the presence or absence of nuclear fusion within the object at some point in its existence), the second point is intentionally more lax and inclusive. While an individual rock or pile of gravel orbiting the sun would be called a planet by no one, and the Earth is accepted as a planet by all, the distinction between small, irregular objects and gravitationally rounded bodies is not always clear-cut. Judging whether an object’s shape satisfies the hydrostatic equilibrium condition depends on precise knowledge of its size, mass, internal composition, rotational period, and other factors. As such, an object that initially formed with an equilibrium shape may later fall out of equilibrium if its rotational period changes, its shape is eroded by impacts, etc. While some earlier physical definitions explicitly mention the hydrostatic equilibrium condition, the revised geophysical definition leaves the precise amount of gravitational roundness open for debate and interpretation. After all, objects like Mercury and Venus deviate from ideal hydrostatic equilibrium, and no planetary body has a perfectly smooth, ideal shape.
unfortunately, even that wording is sloppy! Changing rotation rates and impacts do not cause a body to "fall out of equilibrium", they only make it obvious that it no longer is in equilibrium. Again, we seem to be back to the idea that "hydrostatic equilibrium" means appearance, not geophysical properties.
I'll have to look. — kwami ( talk) 22:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S. With nine consensus dwarfs, four large-ish bodies that should have mostly collapsed internally but not resurfaced (with potentially FY27 coming if we get something better on its size), and eight planets and one Sun to keep apart from them, my inspiration for the colouring has pretty much become the Tokyo rail network map. XD Double sharp ( talk) 11:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Re the designations: got them from JPL. Xiangliu (S/2010 (225088) 1), Ilmarë (S/2009 (174567) 1), Weywot (S/2006 (50000) 1), Vanth (S/2005 (90482) 1). So I'll add them back. Double sharp ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That said, the moon of 2013 FY27 is apparently undesignated. Same for the unconfirmed moon of 2003 AZ84. Double sharp ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
What the German Wikipedia does for unnamed moons: de:(208996) 2003 AZ84 1, de:S/2018 (532037) 1. Double sharp ( talk) 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I added AZ84 and its moon to the lists ( Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, List of natural satellites). Admittedly the moon is lost, but at least 700 km is a good cutoff, and anyway the low-density result assumes it's in HE (which it might not be; by the book this would make it not a dwarf in either case, but probably people would just ignore it like for Mercury). And anyway there are many lost moons in there too, e.g. S/2003 J 10, and our only source for not finding it is a tweet. From Mike Brown, but doesn't really stop our other sources (including JPL) from listing AZ84 among binaries.
BTW, we have an 83rd moonlet of Saturn now: S/2019 S 1. Double sharp ( talk) 00:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Although, LOL at the anachronisms at the JPL page: "S/1978 (134340) 1" for Charon. :D Double sharp ( talk) 23:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
They really do remind me of the Witch runes from Puella Magi Madoka Magica, LOL. Double sharp ( talk) 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I reverted a problematic editor, but retained your pronunciation edit. Your edit was flagged as reverted. Cheers Adakiko ( talk) 03:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
It's clear I'm not the only one with problems with your intended change to the "Earth" symbol. From Earth Mass history
curprev 14:42, 29 November 2021 Double sharp talk contribs 171 bytes +2 Undid revision 1057801525 by Tom.Reding (talk) it's still not the right symbol. the problem is not your browser but whether you have a font with the right symbol rollback: 1 editundothank Tag: Undo curprev 14:25, 29 November 2021 Tom.Reding talk contribs 169 bytes −2 Undid revision 1048791519 by Kwamikagami (talk) Displays as a box in Chrome undothank Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 20:46, 7 October 2021 Kwamikagami talk contribs 171 bytes +2 that's a mathematical operator, not the symbol for Earth, which is 🜨 undothank Tag: Reverted curprev 01:31, 11 July 2021 ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ talk contribs 169 bytes −42 Rm interlanguage link to deleted target. They are hosted in wikidata now, so rm msg too undothank curprev 16:12, 12 October 2020 Lithopsian talk contribs 211 bytes −2 Undid revision 982466559 by NuclearElevator (talk) needs discussion, does not display correctly in all browsers undothank Tag: Undo curprev 05:44, 8 October 2020 NuclearElevator talk contribs 213 bytes +2 Re-introduced character change. It's been changed on template:val undothank Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 05:05, 8 October 2020 NuclearElevator talk contribs 211 bytes −2 holding off on the character change until template:val is changed too undothank Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 04:22, 8 October 2020 NuclearElevator talk contribs 213 bytes +2 Using ALCHEMICAL SYMBOL FOR VERDIGRIS (U+1F728, 🜨) instead of CIRCLED PLUS (U+2295, ⊕) undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reverted
While using that symbol as a subscript may be "more correct", it's clear that support is not universal. Tarl N. ( discuss) 19:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Tom.Reding: @ Double sharp: For the record, looking at the back-and-forth diffs, on Earth-mass, this is how that symbol renders under all my equipment (I am absolutely clean on fonts - nothing special). On the left side is what Tom had converted it back to, on the right is the "correct" Earth symbol, which renders as an indistinguishable blob.
Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 23:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
There are tens of thousands of articles on WP-en that you can't read all of without extra fonts." I have yet to run into one of them. You're saying that a newcomer looking up something on Wikipedia shouldn't be able to understand articles unless he installs some unspecified special fonts from somewhere equally unspecified? How are they supposed to know? Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
Contains special characters}}
.
Double sharp (
talk) 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)BTW, I believe WP has started providing web fonts so that articles and symbols are displayed for those who don't have font support. But I don't know anything about that or where we'd go to get the Earth symbol added. — kwami ( talk) 02:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Just letting you know the issues from March are ongoing. Libhye ( talk) 04:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
How do you get the zodiac symbols to not display as emoji? Because I added Ophiuchus to Astronomical symbol#Symbols for zodiac and other constellations. I'd like some sources for it: had been holding off on adding it, but eventually I felt it was too important.
Also, do you have a source for the galaxy symbol at the bottom of the page? Double sharp ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami. The article has been in error since April, why are you reverting back in a cite error? If the issue is with the template then the template should be fixed, but we shouldn't just leave cite errors in article space. I see you marked as inactive, so I'll wait a few days and revert back if I don't here from you. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
You are uploading rongorongos claiming them to be fair use and putting multiple rationales and copyright tags. This is considered licence trolling and your images are now being changed to public domain.-- Alex Mitchell of The Goodies ( talk) 02:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
You will also be discussed at the Teahouse.-- Alex Mitchell of The Goodies ( talk) 03:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
It turns out the issue has been discussed on the talk page. The main participant seems to think that we are prescribing and proscribing pronunciations and telling readers how they should pronounce Manlia, being patronizing in the process, rather than simply informing readers of a certain pronunciation, leaving them to do what they want with it or nothing at all. They also repeat the incorrect notion that the Classical Latin pronunciation of Manlia can be predicted from the spelling. Libhye ( talk) 11:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, in 2014 Stern said that "at least eight more objects (Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, Ixion, Varuna, 2002 AW197, Pallas and Vesta) may well be round enough to fit the IAU's dwarf-planet definition". Well, I guess with that wording he was talking about candidates. Though it's weird that he included Vesta, after Dawn. Double sharp ( talk) 09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Avilich (
talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaeo-Portuguese until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
BilCat ( talk) 07:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This is just to let you know that the Wikimedia ZA AGM will be taking place on 25 September 2021 See below for more details.
Hi Kwamikagami, unfortunately that nobody agrees to fix our IP problem. I know that you are not an administrator at the French Wiktionnaire. If you became an administrator at the French Wiktionnaire, maybe you would agree to change our block duration, haha, it's a joke. Joe Pig ( talk) 17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, hurray! Our problem is fixed ! Joe Pig ( talk) 18:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You wrote mysteriously that Stearn's assessment of the historic derivation of planetary symbols has been questioned by later research. Well earlier today I transferred the material you deleted from Gender symbols into Planet symbols#Classical planets, citing Stearn as the RS.
The symbols for Mars, Venus and Mercury are derived from the initial letters of the Ancient Greek names of these classical planets. [1] [a]
So do tell! If you point me in the right direction, I'm happy to draft something. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
At planetary symbols, Jones (1999) Astronomical papyri from Oxyrhynchu, which were discovered after Stearns wrote; "It is now possible to trace the medieval symbols for at least four of the five planets to forms that occur in some of the latest papyrus horoscopes ... Mercury's is a stylized caduceus. ... The ideal form of Mars' symbol is uncertain, and perhaps not related to the later circle with an arrow through it."
One problem w Renkema's speculation reported by Stearn is that he attempts to account for the Christian cross that was added in the 16th century as part of the original Greek abbreviation. He also doesn't seem to recognize that a stroke was added to an abbreviation to mark it as an abbreviation (much like a period is today); only in Z-stroke for Zeus does he have that. He appears to have just been making stuff up. Does anyone still consider Renkema to be likely?
But we really shouldn't have anything at gender symbols per FORK. Too hard to keep things up to date when ppl wouldn't know to look there.
Need to check further reg. Mercury for hybrids. Maybe Linnaeus used the same symbol for both hybrids and hermaphrodite flowers? — kwami ( talk) 23:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
However. the earliest surviving Linnaean manuscript, first printed in 1957 (as Linnaeus, Ortabok) but compiled by Linnaeus in 1725 at the age of 18, shows that by then he had copied them from the Pharmacopoca Leovardensis (1687; 2nd ed., 1698); see Figure 2. In his Systema Naturae (Leyden, 1735) he used them with their traditional associations for metals. Their first biological use is in the Linnaean dissertation Plantae hybridae xxx sistit J. J. Haartman (1751) where in discussing hybrid plants Linnaeus denoted the supposed female parent species by the sign ♀, the male parent by the sign ♂, the hybrid by
⚥[☿] "matrem signo ♀, patrem ♂ & plantam hybridam⚥[☿] designavero". In subsequent publications he retained the signs ♂ and ♀ for male and female individuals but discarded⚥[☿] for hybrids; the last are now indicated by the multiplication sign ×. Linnaeus's first general use of the signs of ♂ and ♀ was in his Species Plantarum (1753) written between 1746 and 1752 and surveying concisely the whole plant kingdom as then known.— Stearn,The Origin of the Male and Female Symbols of Biology [1]
It looks like Linnaeus never used ⚥ at all. He used ☿ first for hybrids and later for 'perfect' flowers. (He also used ♂ for more than one meaning: male parent, biennial and male.) Current usage is × for hybrids and ⚥ for perfect/bisexual flowers. The fn 12 at planetary symbols should now be accurate -- I corrected it against the original (minor errors) and expanded it to cover the 2nd use.
Re. Mantissa Plantarum, ☿ is used for "Hermaphroditus flos" on p. 21 (#1283) — kwami ( talk) 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The origin of these symbols has long been of interest to scholars. Probably none now accepts the interpretation of Scaliger that ♂ represents the shield and spear of Mars and ♀ Venus's looking glass.( Joseph Justus Scaliger speculated that the male symbol is associated with Mars, god of war because it resembles a shield and spear; and that the female symbol is associated with Venus, goddess of beauty because it resembles a bronze mirror with a handle.[Taylor, Robert B. (2016), "Now and Future Tales", White Coat Tales, Springer International Publishing, pp. 293–310, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29055-3_12, ISBN 978-3-319-29053-9] Later scholars dismiss this as fanciful, the visual equivalent of a backronym, preferring "the conclusion of the French classical scholar Claude de Saumaise (Salmasius, 1588–1683) that these symbols [...] are derived from contractions in Greek script of the Greek names of the planets".)
Hi kwami,
After bringing it to GA status, I've listed the Levantine Arabic for peer review here in hopes of bringing it to FA status. As you previously participated in discussions on this article's talk page and because it would be my first FAC, I would love to get your feedback on this peer-review and maybe your assistance in the preparation and processing of the nomination.
Thanks for any help you can provide, A455bcd9 ( talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Please give sources for pronunciations that you add (such as those at Monoicy and Monoecy). There is wide variation in the way that such scientific terms are pronounced in my experience. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Haven't seen you on an edit page for ages. I just thought I'd let you know that the Interlingue page has gotten too large to be the only page on the language and in its most recent Good Article review it was recommended that some of the finer details be shuffled off into their own articles. One recommended one was Comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua which I've started, while Grammar of Interlingue and History of Interlingue haven't yet but once they become their own pages then a lot of the grammar and historical parts are going to get moved off there to give the main page some space to breathe. I hope to get the main page down to about 100,000 bytes by the end but we'll see.
(And since you're a phonology and grammar guy, feel free to start the grammar page if you ever feel like it...if not I'll get around to it after the comparison and the history page, which are my two strengths for the subject) Mithridates ( talk) 13:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Do I understand correctly that you replaced the description of the symbol picture because it will not produce coherent text when copied? Well, now when I move my cursor on the picture I see an empty square and when I copy it, a square with question mark instead of the actual symbol or a human-readable description. Adeliine ( talk) 09:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Cistercian numerals you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk) 15:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The article
Cistercian numerals you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Cistercian numerals for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The article
Cistercian numerals you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Cistercian numerals for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk) 16:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Buenaventura language. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Buenaventura language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kwami, we've had this kind of discussion already some years ago: please, please do not make page moves out of the blue without any kind of preceding discussion. You moved Wolaytta language to Wolaitta language without giving any reason, probably having none, as Ethnologue, Glottolog and WALS all agree on calling it Wolaytta. This kind of move is not only pointless, but actually quite disruptive, as the title of the page now gives a different spelling than the first line, and Ethiopian language names are already confusing enough as they are. Most Wolaytta people can't even agree on how to spell their own given names, so why do we need to reinforce that when at least for the language name some kind of consensus has arisen, at least in the academic literature about the language? So, I kindly ask you to redo this move, or I will have to get myself into the trouble of finding out how to do this. Cheers, Landroving Linguist ( talk) 08:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't care which spelling we use. The reason I moved it was that I created a link w the 'i' spelling, and it was red. That surprised me. I could've created a rd directly or by moving the page, and it was easier to move the page. But I certainly won't object if you move it back.
One point, though -- the 3 repositories you mention are not independent sources. Glottolog started off with Ethnologue's language inventory and then set out to correct, augment and purge it. If they leave an Ethn spelling, that can just mean that they don't care. (And they generally don't care about labels.) I believe WALS also uses ISO spellings. So they're really a single source, ISO, which is not a RS for which name is best. If Glotto and WALS go along with ISO, that may just mean that it's close enough to not bother with, not that it's the dominant spelling in the lit. (Which in this case AFAICT it's not.)
Personally, I don't think that we should use ISO, an industrial standard, to determine language-name preferences for linguistics. — kwami ( talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't move it because it didn't match the spelling of a link I made. I moved it because the most common spelling didn't exist and it needed to. I then had a choice of how to create the rd, and saw no reason not to do it by moving the article to the more common name. There are cases where I've moved an article half a dozen times to create half a dozen redirects. If anyone's ever objected, it was a trivial number compared to the thousands of page moves I've made and thousands of redirects I've created. And the choice is usually a trivial one anyway. Some of these languages, including some in Ethiopia, are so poorly covered in English that a single publication can change the dominant name or spelling in the literature. — kwami ( talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
From Most Phallic Building contest:
"Cabinet wrote that the Ypsilanti Water Tower, called "the brick dick" by locals, "is clearly the world's most phallic." [...] Located on the highest point in Ypsilanti, erection began in 1889 [...]" -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 07:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, Kwamikagami: I notice that your recent edit at Pykobjê dialect has created a reference problem with ref name= "glotto" which doesn't exist - is this from a different article? Can you please help me correct it to a real reference format ? Thanks. 09:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. That's referring to the glotto param in the info box. Someone must've disabled support. I noticed the glotto params don't generate refs any more. Must be part of that. When I get a chance I'll revert the changes to the info box. — kwami ( talk) 00:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chaungtha language. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Chaungtha language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, im jus curious why my edits of the classification of the Great Lakes Bantu languages were removed even tho i gave valid sources from as recently as 2019. Wojak6 ( talk) 06:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to prefer creating redirects using the unusual method of starting with one redirect and then moving it in sequence across all the titles for redirects to the same target. Please don't do that. It may save you a few milliseconds of your time, but it adds to the labour for anyone else who's going to deal with those redirects afterwards. If the first entry in a redirect's history is a move, then this will almost universally be an indication that the title was previously occupied by an article (it's articles that get moved, not redirects). On several occasions I've had to go from one move long entry to another, looking for that elusive article in the history that I may need to have histmerged, only to find in the end it's just redirects all the way down. Also, these redirects will end up having more than one edit in their history (because of the double-redirect fixing), which means that if the target article ever needs to be moved over one of them, this won't be possible without advanced permissions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Mike Novikoff removed all our edits from
WP:RUSTRESS and restored an old version, even if I politely asked him not to do so and be constructive:
here: The essay doesn't belong to you; it's in common space, and some other users actually asked me to edit it. One other user edited it before me, anyway, and another after me (I also included a sentence suggested by a third user). You can give a link to the old version here, and we can discuss the whole thing on the talk page. Anyway, I tried to include both points of view, and I didn't remove most of your arguments (save for the irrelevant or misleading stuff). Let's not complicate things.
— Could you please do something about it? It's very frustrating, to say the least. Thanks. —
Taurus Littrow (
talk) 05:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ibdawud would like to move Kaado language to Songhay proper or something similar. Glottolog lists it as Kaado. See Talk:Kaado language. — Sagotreespirit ( talk) 19:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kaktovik numerals you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Chipmunkdavis --
Chipmunkdavis (
talk) 14:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kaktovik numerals you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Kaktovik numerals for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Chipmunkdavis --
Chipmunkdavis (
talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kaktovik numerals you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Kaktovik numerals for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Chipmunkdavis --
Chipmunkdavis (
talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mathematics Barnstar | |
For getting Kaktovik numerals to good article status. Thank you Akrasia25 ( talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) |
You might want to refresh yourself on WP:BRD. That image has been in the article for 8 years. You removed it. I objected to your reason and restored it. Please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than continuing to remove it. Meters ( talk) 04:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
the letter t is not a consonant, it's a letter. I disagreed. Meters ( talk) 04:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Hulmem. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
KBRW (AM), but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
hulmem (
talk) 22:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
South Scandinavian languages. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#South Scandinavian languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a disagreement between me and another user about the use of the Help:IPA/Latin key on the articles Manlia gens and Romulus. Thought you might perhaps be interested since you've contributed to that key in the past. Libhye ( talk) 21:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
On 25 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kaktovik numerals, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kaktovik numerals (pictured) are an iconic, base-20 numeral system created by the Alaskan Iñupiat, with shapes that visually indicate the numbers being represented? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kaktovik numerals. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Kaktovik numerals), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Karipúna do Uaçá language. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Karipúna do Uaçá language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
KittenKlub (
talk) 12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, please can you explain your edit summary "still need pan-UK" in the Snooker article. I'm working on the lead section at the moment. I don't understand what you mean by "pan-UK". My best guess is that you are talking about the spread of snooker from the UK into other parts of the world, like Asia? Or is it a language thing? Cheers, Rodney Baggins ( talk) 08:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As the second most contributor to the article this may be of interest to you. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baháʼí Faith in Chad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baháʼí Faith in Chad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Smkolins ( talk) 14:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, I am a specialist who works in this field. Nowadays, Southeast Asian linguists do not use tone sticks to mark tones. This is something that only old-fashioned Sinologists do now. If in doubt, you can e-mail linguists working on SE Asian languages or take a look at STEDT.
This is the equivalent of converting IAST into IPA on all Indo-Aryan articles, Semitic transcriptions into IPA, or especially turning combining accents in African languages into tone sticks.
Can we get community consensus on this first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages? Lingnanhua ( talk) 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Lingnanhua:
It's fine to have specialist, walled-garden transcriptions, but for general use we have a long-standing consensus to use IPA. Wikipedia is, after all, a global resource, not intended just for Sinologists and SE Asianists. We certainly should never use local conventions without explaining to the reader what they are! You'll notice that for IAST transcription of Indic languages, they're tagged as IAST and linked to a key (or at least they should be). The problem is not just that the digits are not IPA, but that they are undefined. '3', for example, might be high pitch, mid pitch or low pitch, and which it is varies from language to language and even from author to author. In the languages I've worked on, for example, '1' is HIGH and '5' is LOW. It's very confusing to try to read something where all the tone numbers are the inverse of what they're "supposed" to mean. Chao tone letters don't have that problem. As for combining diacritics, those are also IPA and unambiguous, so there's no problem using them.
What you're arguing for is more like Americanists insisting on using Americanist phonetic notation rather than IPA, or insisting that geographic articles use Imperial rather than metric measures. Sure, such local conventions are acceptable, but they should never be the default, not even in articles about the USA. — kwami ( talk) 01:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that's a reasonable approach. — kwami ( talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
They seem to be scattered throughout Category:Wikipedia multilingual support templates. — kwami ( talk) 01:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Your DYK hook about the Kaktovik numerals system created by the Alaskan Iñupiat drew 9,264 page views (772 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 ( talk) 18:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not know what you were attempting to articulate to me with your comments on my Talk page - who is "He"? - but it is clear that you did not bother to read the cited reference before you reverted me - that reference was not all about genus Canis.
As for your comment of "...your 'translation' is obviously nonsense...", and your edit summary of "...no evidence for obviously false translation..." (a) I refer you to WP:CIVIL, and (b) it was never my 'translation' because it was from the cited reference which you did not check.
As for your edit summary of "...It's not Canis! Did you notice the genus is different? Aenocyon does not mean "wolf"!...", please see my user page and then you can form your own opinion as to whether I know the difference.
Nor do I understand why an article on a Late Pleistocene North American canid on the English version of Wikipedia benefits from a lesson in ancient Greek. William Harris (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
VeryRarelyStable. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Enochian have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. Thank you.
—
VeryRarelyStable 07:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami,
I noticed that this map you created, which is used on many different articles throughout Wikipedia, is missing the island of Mindoro. Would you be able to correct it?
Red Panda 25 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
(Aug. 5, 2020) On July 3, 2020, the president of Montenegro, Milo ÄukanoviÄ, signed Decree No. 01-1337 / 2 on the Promulgation of the Law on the Same-Sex Life Partnership. The president issued the decree two days after the Skupština Crne Gore (the Parliament of Montenegro) passed the Law on the Same-Sex Life Partnership (Law No. 868 of July 1, 2020.)
Forty-two lawmakers in the 81-seat Parliament backed the law, which required 41 votes for passage. Members of the Parliament from the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS); the Social Democrats; the Liberal Party; and the opposition party, the Social Democratic Party, comprised the votes for passing the legislation. Five MP’s voted against and the rest claimed during the June 30 debate that the law was being imposed by the “world Satanists” and abstained from voting.
The law enters into force on the eighth day after its publication in the Official Gazette of Montenegro, but the law’s provisions stipulate that its implementation (the issuing of certificates of partnership, etc.) will begin one year after it enters into force. (Art. 76.)
Naraht ( talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: I understand if you are busy, but judging from your contributions, you may be interested. Wretchskull ( talk) 10:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami. It was easier for me to revert all three edits at once, sorry about that, but I feel I owe you a longer explanation: when it comes to the language of Croats (Hr-VA-ti), stress is indeed on the thrilled R (HRRR-vatski) and that was not a typo. The four dialects are more than accents, but you're right that they should be listed with commas, not slashes. Thanks, Ponor ( talk) 20:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I had one question. If a voiced consonant, say /b/, is said to be ‘slightly voiced’, then should I represent it as [b̥᪽] or would a simple [b̥] (without the parentheses) be fine? [For more details, this is a phenomenon in Standard Bengali in which initial and final voiced stops are slightly voiced, while full voicing occurs in intervocalic positions.] Thank you so much for your attention! — inqilābī ‹ inqilāb· zinda· bād› 01:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, is there a source that mentions the name of the Tomui/Tomul River? I need to see if the correct spelling is Tomui River or Tomul River. The Cebuano Wikipedia has Tomul River, but the Madang language articles here have "Tomui River." — Sagotreespirit ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog ( talk) 10:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, in this edit you introduced an Sfn reference "Bender 2020" without defining it. This adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, as well as making it impossible for anyone to look up the reference. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Help added IPA and Pronunciation respelling key. Thanks you. Vnosm ( talk) 02:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've found some edits by you from about two years ago fixing duplicate tone bars; since search queries like
Special:Search/insource:/˥˥/ do return results, maybe you could do a new run now? Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a very delicate time right now. Before making any edits, may I ask that you carefully go through the peer review, the GA nomination, and the subsequent peer review. Some things you did were open to discussion. Others were not and I do not have the time to illucidate them individually. Serendi pod ous 10:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Kwamikagami
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Steve Quinn, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Yongnan languages, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Steve Quinn}}
. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop undoing references to the recently passed state constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage in Yucatan state. Every credible news source reporting on the issue says that the law allows same-sex couples to marry. That was the whole point of the amendment. One tweet from a random person does not discredit all of those sources. Please only make changes if a consensus emerges that this is incorrect, or if you can cite a credible source -- a news article or the government of Yucatan -- that says otherwise.
This article notes that the constitution takes precedence over all other laws, and that editing the Family Code is a mere formality: https://www.yucatan.com.mx/merida/en-espera-de-que-publiquen-cambio
Note that the Yucatan state congress' official twitter account tweeted that it passed a same-sex marriage law. [1] This is clearly more authoritative than your twitter user.
More sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
References
There are other sources that contradict yours at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico#Yucatan. I'll copy over the first of your refs, but should present your case there. — kwami ( talk) 04:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand shogi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Slimy asparagus ( talk) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sort this the fuck out. Wikipedia's article on Ceres has to say that Ceres is a dwarf planet. Because every other relevant, up to date reference guide does. The IAU have officially declared it a dwarf planet. It is the IAU's job to rule on issues of nomenclature. As long as that is the case, Ceres is a dwarf planet. I don't care if it isn't hydrostatic equilibrium, was in hydrostatic equlibrium, or is a banana fruit cake. Put a paragraph-long note at the end explaining the caveats if you must, but sort this out. I will not have your egomaniacal crusade derail four months of work and my first chance at a featured article in 10 years. Serendi pod ous 01:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I can cite one relevant source: the IAU. How many sources does your position require? Ten? A hundred? Hydrostatic equilibrium depends on chemical makeup, temperature, tidal history, and a hundred other variables. To say precisely when an object is is hydrostatic equilibrium is a fool's errand and really only serves to obscure the issue. And I think you know that. Just like I'm pretty sure Alan Stern knows he's obscuring the issue when he says that Jupiter hasn't cleared its neighborhood. Serendi pod ous 02:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The IAU isn't a reliable source on a term the IAU invented and defined? Serendi pod ous 02:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've found some edits by you from about two years ago fixing duplicate tone bars; since search queries like
Special:Search/insource:/˥˥/ do return results, maybe you could do a new run now? Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how and where did you get these names from? The WGSPN page you linked in both articles is invalid and no official sources have announced these names as far as I am aware. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the poster's definition looks like it is just "is it at least the size of Mimas". But come to think of it, differentiated but not-round Vesta should allow one to make the same argument as that for Pluto. Pluto argues you don't need to clear the neighbourhood to have interesting planetary geology; Vesta argues that you don't even need to be round anymore. ;)
Although maybe this opens the Pandora's box to planet Phoebe and quite possibly a whole bunch of large M- and S-type asteroids. Well, they are the largest remnants of bodies that presumably were differentiated before they got whacked.
(I'm obviously not seriously advocating such a definition!) :) Double sharp ( talk) 08:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:!Haunu.ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:=Ka'gara.ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Following the Grundy et al. assessment, that means that the only TNO moon likely to be a "satellite planet" is Charon, right? Since Dysnomia and Vanth are in that transition range, they're quite dark, and everything else is smaller. Double sharp ( talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I wonder how Salacia could be this dark (i.e. probably no resurfacing) and still be dense enough. Did it begin to collapse and just never finish? Double sharp ( talk) 14:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
The moves seem a little premature. It seems to be motivated by one article (is it peer-reviewed?) that cites one netizen anecdote in each case. Is that really enough to justify the moves? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 08:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the provisional designations for Ceres and Pluto you added: I get that they're at the JPL Small-Body Database Browser, but surely they must be anachronisms? Ceres couldn't have had one when it was discovered, since there wasn't even a distinction between major and minor planets back then. And Pluto was thought on discovery to be Lowell's Planet X. The MPC does not list a provisional designation for Pluto (though it does for other named bodies like Eris); for Ceres, it lists what appear to be two rediscoveries from later (1899 OF, 1943 XB). Double sharp ( talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This scheme has been extended to pre-1925 discoveries--such designations are indicated by the replacement of the initial digit of the year by the letter `A'. Thus, A904 OA is the first object designated that was discovered in the second half of July 1904.
So, it's basically a retroactive scheme. (Found it while trying to find info about the Ceres designations.) In which case A801 AA makes some sense to include, and certainly more sense than the mistakes A899 OF and 1943 XB.
Still no luck about 1930 BM for Pluto, though. Double sharp ( talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
If our position is that Quaoar is as much a DP as Ceres is, by general scientific consensus, then it seems odd that Quaoar's article is at the MP number ( 50000 Quaoar) while Ceres' gets parenthetical disambiguation ( Ceres (dwarf planet)). Maybe Wikipedia:Natural disambiguation suggests it should be 1 Ceres instead. And likewise 136199 Eris like 225088 Gonggong.
I guess Haumea, Makemake, and Pluto are still primary topics. But if we allow those exceptions, then there may be consistency questions about things like 117 Lomia where the minor planet is already the primary topic. OTOH I can't see a move to 134340 Pluto as getting any consensus, even though in practice the article would use just the name (like 6 Hebe being just called Hebe in the article). Or maybe we should just accept the exceptions since they are well-known? Or perhaps just Pluto can be the exception? Or perhaps we should just leave things alone as they work now and Ceres FAC is still ongoing? Double sharp ( talk) 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I started a move discussion at Talk:Minor planet designation. — kwami ( talk) 07:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I get Eris, Haumea, and Makemake (used by NASA that one time) and Sedna (made it into Unicode), but is there use of that Gonggong symbol yet? Double sharp ( talk) 08:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Endlich bin ich noch auf eine schickliche Benennung und Bezeichnung unser neuen Planeten bedacht gewesen. In der oberwehnten Abhandlung habe ich, da wir doch nun einmal bey der Mythologie bleiben müssen, bereits den Namen Uranus vorgeschlagen. Uranus wird bekanntlich für den Vater des Saturns, so wie dieser für den Vater des Jupiters gehalten. Ich bemerke auch mit Vergnügen, dass verschiedene Astronomen diese Benennung billigen. Unter andern schrieb mir neulich Herr Prof. Lichtenberg: „Ich denke der Name Uranus ist gut gewählt. Ich habe einmal im Scherz Asträa vorgeschlagen, weil man sagt, sie sey (und es ist leider! in gewissen Verstande so) aus der Welt gewichen und dem Himmel zugeflogen. Aber freylich ist Virgo schon eine Asträa. Ich werde in den hiesigen Kalendern etwas davon unter einen eigenen Artikel mit dem Namen Uranus einrücken lassen, er wird auch ins Französische übersetzt.“
Wegen eines Zeichens schrieb mir Herr Inspector Köhler: „Sie haben mich befragt, was man dem neuen Planeten für ein Zeichen geben soll. Ohnstreitig das von der Platina del Pinto, * Nur Schade, dass dieses zur Zeit noch kein allgemein angenommenes Zeichen hat. ** Lassen Sie ein Chymiker urtheilen, ob folgendes schicklich und den Eigenschaften und Bestandtheilen der Platina angemessen sey: ⛢ oder ⛢. Letztere Lage würde ich ihm deswegen geben, um solches nicht mit dem Zeichen der ♀ zu verwechseln etc.“
Die Platina, oder das weisse Gold, ist, wie die Chymiker finden, mit Eisen vermischt, also wäre das vorgeschlagene Zeichen derselben angemessen, und könnte zugleich sehr gut zur Bezeichnung unsers neuen Wandelsterns dienen. Nur deucht mir, dass die senkrechte Stellung desselben ⛢ dem Auge in der Reihe der übrigen Planetenzeichen besser gefallen würde, als die liegende, und dass es dennoch von den Zeichen des ♂ und der ♁ hinlänglich genug zu unterscheiden wäre.
* Eben diesen Gedanken habe ich schon ohnlängst gleichfalls gehabt.
** Der Hr. Graf von Sickingen hat in seiner Abhandlung von der Platina, diesem neuen Metall das Kometenzeichen (ein Stern mit einem Schweif) gegeben.
Finally I have also considered a proper name and symbol for our new planet. In the above-mentioned treatise I already suggested the name Uranus, since we must stick to mythology. Uranus is known to be the father of Saturn, just as Saturn is considered the father of Jupiter. I also note with pleasure that various astronomers endorse this designation. Among others, Prof. Lichtenberg recently wrote to me: "I think the name Uranus is well-chosen. In jest I once suggested Astraea, for it is said (and alas! for certain intellects it is so) that she has left the world and flown to heaven. But of course Virgo is already an Astraea. I will have it inserted in the local calendars under a separate article[?] with the name Uranus; it will also be translated into French."
Herr Inspector Köhler wrote to me about a symbol: "You asked me what kind of symbol the new planet should be given. Without a doubt that of the platina del Pinto [little silver of the Pinto river].* Just a shame that this does not have a generally accepted symbol at the moment.** Let a chemist judge whether the following is appropriate for the properties and components of the platinum: ⛢ or ⛢. I would give it the latter situation so as not to confuse it with the sign of the ♀ etc. "
Platinum, or white gold, is, as the chemists find, mixed with iron, so the suggested symbol for it would be appropriate, and at the same time could very well serve to designate our new wandering star. Only it seems to me that the vertical position of the same ⛢ would please the eye better in the row of the other planetary signs than the horizontal one, and that it would still be sufficiently distinguishable from the symbols ♂ and ♁.
* I have also had this same thought for a long time.
** In his treatise on platinum, Count von Sickingen gave this new metal the comet's sign (a star with a tail).
Any astrological use for Quaoar and Orcus yet, BTW? Double sharp ( talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
What's going to be our cut-off for astronomical symbol? I ask because previously we had only Haumea, Makemake, and Eris among the new ones (because NASA used them), but you mentioned Sedna in the text. Also we now have the symbols in the infoboxes for Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, and Gonggong as well (IIRC you added Sedna and Gonggong, and I added Orcus and Quaoar based on precedent), matching the idea that they've become more or less standard among those who actually bother with symbols anymore.
The symbol for Vesta in Unicode is, IIRC, a form that was only ever used for astrology, but we list that codepoint anyway in the astronomical symbols table. Sedna is in Unicode too, but not yet the others. And anyway the symbols for Ceres through Vesta are probably orders of magnitude more used in astrology than astronomy nowadays. So I can buy adding the TNOs that appear in Astrolog to some extent, but then again, no known astronomical use yet? Double sharp ( talk) 03:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at this font. Looks like they crammed everything they could in there, including some duplicates. They have Varuna and Interamnia, but even they don't have Salacia. — kwami ( talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Something I wondered re List of natural satellites: do you have the source for it being numbered Makemake I already? Over there it is, but at Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons it is not. (And I guess that list ought to have the other DPs added, but maybe to avoid a profusion of colours all the dwarfs should get the same one?) Double sharp ( talk) 15:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Making Pluto continue to stand out on its own, without larger Eris, feels a bit too close to the pre-2006 situation for my taste (in the sense of giving Pluto a planet-like status by itself among TNOs). Pluto and Haumea seems less bad. Or perhaps I should just go and find more colours. XD Double sharp ( talk) 15:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It's quite strange to see Finno-Ugric peoples now being redirected to Finno-Ugric countries, since "Finno-Ugric peoples" is a very well established term in ethnography (no less so than, say, Slavic peoples or Turkic peoples), and the non-linguistic characteristics shared by certain Finno-Ugric peoples were studied extensively as well. On the other hand, "Finno-Ugric countries" is a rarely used term (as it's not a political union or anything like that, and Pan-Finno-Ugrism is a rather fringe ideology). Finstergeist ( talk) 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, we give all TNOs as accepted DPs to Salacia. I'm wondering, though, if it's really right that we include Salacia. Has Grundy yet called Salacia a DP? In the Grundy source you gave me, that finds out its higher density, Salacia is still just called DP-sized. So should we really give it the same weight as Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus as a DP if even that paper doesn't accept it? It seems even weaker than Orcus as a candidate. Orcus is at the lower end of the transition range, and its density is unimpressive (it could easily be 1.4 g/cm3 within current uncertainties), but at least it is bright. Salacia is below the lower end, has the same unimpressive density, and is not even bright. Actually it is the darkest large TNO.
Or is the idea that objects below the lower end (900 km) of the transition scale can be included if something suggests that they might be DPs (so Salacia has its density possibly in its favour, but so far 2002 MS4 has nothing known, and it'd go in if we found its density to be high)? If so, then I'd point out that 2013 FY27 at albedo 0.17 is brighter than Varda and getting pretty close to Orcus at 0.23. If a body initially in the transition range managed to collapse due to some weird thermal history, then it should be smaller now, having closed up a lot of pore space, surely? In back-of-the-envelope fashion, a 900-km diameter body with 50% porosity has total solid volume about the same as a 720-km diameter solid body, which is not far from 2013 FY27. Double sharp ( talk) 10:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Just a thought: even among the round planemo moons, 16 out of 19 actually have diameter greater than 1000 km. Tethys, the smallest of the sixteen, has a diameter of about 1066 km. The only stragglers are Enceladus (504 km), Miranda (472 km), and Mimas (396 km) – yet between Miranda and Mimas lies Proteus (420 km). Not to mention that Miranda is so battered that it looks like it was badly glued together after having been broken. Therefore, I have to wonder if the 400 km figure that came from Mimas is even valid for icy satellites and bodies with such a density. Naturally the transition for them should occur at something significantly lower than 900 km, but it seems eminently possible that shape at ~500 km radius even for very icy bodies depends a lot on history or at least distance from the Sun (comparing Enceladus with Miranda, or Mimas with Proteus). And I suspect that if Saturn had preserved a Galilean-like satellites arrangement (so Mimas and Enceladus did not exist, and the only round-ish body in this range was heavily battered Miranda), we would've been a lot slower to assume a 400 km threshold, and may not have ever thought of it at all. Double sharp ( talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
That symbol was changed to the mathematical operator because the earth symbol as a subscript is not legible on many systems. It appears as an illegible blob. Tarl N. ( discuss) 05:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I've just noticed that in April you redirected the page 'Ngunawal language' to 'Burragorang language' and I'm very curious to know why. I've never heard of a 'Burragorang language', apart from an odd, unsourced, mention in Dixon (2002) that seems to suggest it as an alternative name for both Gandangara and Ngunawal, and of course the use to refer to Gandangara people living in the Burragorang Valley (late 19th and early 20th centuries). I can't see any justification for it having its own page, let alone taking over the Ngunawal page. —— Dougg ( talk) 23:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Mathews published separate grammars for the Gundungurra and Ngunawal D3 but both of these grammars are drawn from the same material in his notebooks headed 'Gundungurra' (Mathews 1901 and 1904, in Eades 1976:6).
Based on his analysis of pronoun forms, Koch concludes that Gandangara (S60) and Ngunawal D3 are dialects of the same language (2011:18).
Glottolog and Koch are quite correct that the two varieties are very similar, were certainly mutually intelligible and no more different than, say, Australian English and General American English. But the differences are very important to the two groups, who consider themselves quite distinct peoples (again, much as with Australia and the USA). And as these are technical, linguistic uses of 'language' and 'dialect' I think it's best to have a page for each of Ngunawal and Gandangarra, and simply to state that they are very similar, and were most likely highly mutually intelligible. Not every level in linguistic classification schemes should get a page on WP... I note that there's no WP page on Macro-English (a Glottolog term). And I can't see any reason to have a page 'Burragorang language' as there is no Australian language by that name; as far as I know (from Jim Smith's work) it was only used to refer to a group of Gandangarra who lived (post-contact) on a reserve in the Burragorang Valley. Dougg ( talk) 06:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw ( here) that you edited Levantine Arabic in the past.
We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox on the talk page. As you are experienced it would be great to have your opinion.
Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 ( talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not going to read all that. It looks like the dispute has narrowed down to what's in the 'states' parameter of the info box -- is that correct? If so, I'd start a new thread so that ppl can follow what the issue is. If there's more to it, what do you consider the last good version of the article? — kwami ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@ A455bcd9: Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can. — kwami ( talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't know why the next sentence was deleted "Kisikongo is not the mother language that carries the Kongo (i.e. Kikongo) Language Cluster". This sentence summarizes the studies (see references). Somebody040404 ( talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The map on Kikongo shows that Kisikongo is the mother tongue, that the other variants of Kikongo are based from Kisikongo, this is false because the Kongo cultural unit existed before the foundation of Kongo dia ntotila by Lukeni lua Nimi and Kongo dia ntotila was multilingual thus Kikongo of Mbanza Kongo (Kisikongo) was not the only spoken language, The name "Kikongo" is actually used for a cluster of related languages, including Kintandu, Kiyombe, Kimanyanga, Tsiladi/Ciladi, Civili, Kindibu, Kikunyi, Kibeembe, Tchibinda, Kisolongo, Kizombo, Kisingombe, Boko ´s Kikongo, Kihaangala, Kinsundi/Kisundi, etc. This is the reason why I have added the three sources that evoke Kikongo, the archaeology that has been done in some places of the ancient Kingdom of Kongo, etc. Somebody040404 ( talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, by mother language I mean Proto-Kikongo. There are people Who think Kisikongo is the Proto-Kikongo. My bad I thought "mother language" also had the same meaning as "langue mère" in French. Yes, They understand each other but not so well (examples : Civili and Kimanianga speakers). Kituba already has its article. Let it stay like that because Kituba is grammarically different from kikongo varieties. It's a good solution to merge all these articles (Kongo language and Kongo languages) into the main Kongo language article. "it's probably best to have separate language articles, even if they all identify as Bakongo" This solution is also good but there are problems : Kikongo varieties and Kikongo ya leta (Kituba) are less and less spoken in Kongo Central even in the Republic of the Congo some Kikongo varieties are less and less spoken. Kisikongo is considered as standard Kikongo in Angola. In Cabinda it is Fyote. Two Kikongo varieties are used in Angolan TV news : Kisikongo and Fyote. Plus all the Kongos taken to the Americas came from all parts of the Kingdom. Somebody040404 ( talk) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Yes, Yaka and Suku should not be under Kongo even if those in Angola consider themselves as Bakongo but those in DRC don't consider themselves as Bakongo. No, langue-mère in French means the proto language. Yes, Vili were part of Kingdom of Loango but they consider themselves as Loangos and Kongos. In the Kingdom of Loango there were Vili, Yombe, Kugni (or Kunyi), Lumbu, Babongo (Forest people or pygmies) and Punu. Vili, Yombe and Kugni consider themselves as Bakongo. Lumbu, Babongo and Punu don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Kingdom of Loango also had influence among Orungu people in Gabon but Orungu people don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Woyo consider themselves as Ngoyos and Bakongo, it's the same with Kakongo. It might be better to classify as follows : North Kikongo, West Kikongo, East Kikongo, Central Kikongo and South Kikongo https://llacan.cnrs.fr/fichiers/nigercongo/fichiers/Bostoen_KikongoNC.pdf. The name Kongo languages is better. Somebody040404 ( talk) 07:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I misspoke! I just wanted to suggest that we can use this as a basis for classifying kikongo varieties according to their inter-comprehensibility, the localization also plays a role : North western or west : Vili, Yombe, Woyo, Ibinda, Kunyi…
North eastern or North: Ladi (Lari), Kikongo of Boko, Haangala…
The classification on the inter comprehensibility deserves a reflection.
Somebody040404 ( talk) 23:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Words without consonants (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for creating a separate article for that main term! I was always annoyed that a "Finnic peoples" article was missing. Good job. -- Blomsterhagens ( talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Qahveh Khaneh Sign Language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
No sourcing. Unsourced claim. No language ISO code. Not notable.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qahveh Khaneh Sign Language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I guess we're not counting Triton in that chart, because it would totally overwhelm everything (I just added some text about that, because the rest of the article agrees that Triton is irregular). But I wonder how it should be treated in the first place, since Triton's story is probably quite a bit different from that of most irregulars. It's not even irregular by the 0.05 Hill radius requirement, and Nereid is borderline: there's a reason why often they are excluded by a reference to "normal" irregular satellites.
Also, I find it a bit odd that Triton is so commonly considered irregular, but not Iapetus, which actually has a better claim by its orbit (being near the 0.05 Hill radius requirement). In fact, by the orbital criterion, Luna should be irregular too. So it kind of suggests that some people are thinking of the term as meaning "captured", rather than being about the orbit. OTOH Amalthea is probably captured too, because if it were a primordial satellite it would be as dehydrated as Io, which it isn't. Yet no one seems to call it irregular. Might be interesting to do a literature search on definitions. Double sharp ( talk) 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Re Neptune's tilt, I found it! :) Double sharp ( talk) 22:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I added it to geophysical definition of planet, since it's basically the same concept with a different name.
That said,
interesting to see written "Roundness" can be used to define the subset of bodies for which gravitational forces exceed material strength. A "world" is an apt name for such bodies, and this classification need not be in conflict with the dynamics-based taxonomy of planets and satellites.
I have to wonder where this leaves objects like Iapetus that freeze out of equilibrium (especially since they note that planetary material strength depends on temperature), as well as those with significant tidal heating like Enceladus.
Double sharp (
talk) 18:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The IAU has not formally defined satellites, which are informally understood to be celestial bodies that orbit planets, dwarf planets, or asteroids. Satellites to planets will have little or no impact on the classification if the satellite-to-planet mass ratio is low. At higher values of the mass ratio, satellites may affect the classification because it is the sum of the component masses in a bound system that determines the ability to clear an orbital zone. The terminology could in principle differentiate between two-body planets (where the sum of the masses exceeds Mclear, but the individual component masses do not) and double planets (where the individual masses both exceed Mclear).So Earth–Luna is a double planet, fair enough. Except that if you plug in the numbers for this, you find that Titan would have Π = 1.40, and that the Galilean moons would have 1.90 (Io), 1.02 (Europa), 3.15 (Ganymede), and 2.30 (Callisto). So if we take it literally that these values clear 1, we get Saturn–Titan as an extremely lopsided double planet and Jupiter–Io–Europa–Ganymede–Callisto as an extremely lopsided quintuple planet. But of course, values near 1 are not really decisive.
My main worry about those is what line we could use to justify keeping exactly these but not Pholus and the third Pluto, which are in both Unicode and Astrolog. (Did you mean to restore them in the infoboxes as well, or just the body of the article?) I like them and would like to have a complete set of likely-DP symbols, but I don't know what line we could use to justify stopping here and not going on with all those others. Double sharp ( talk) 19:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The best excuse I can think of for such symbols to call them just "symbols" or "planetary symbols" in their articles, instead of "astronomical symbols". But, again: it then becomes pretty hard to justify why to have Sedna but not to have Pholus when neither its symbol nor Sedna's seems to have any astronomical usage. Double sharp ( talk) 19:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I made a try for that kind of thing at list of planemos. The other dwarf symbols are back, but now they are always called "symbols" instead of "astronomical symbols", and the note makes it clear that they are at this point mostly astrological symbols. (After all, Ceres today pretty much only gets its symbol among astrologers.) Double sharp ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm happy now. Astronomical symbol still has only strictly astronomical symbols, but points to astrological symbol for the cases where something is different. (Maybe a return to this version would also be all right, minus the alternate Eris.) And I cut astrological symbol down to the relatively standard ones (so no Salacia etc.). For articles, I returned to the cut-off we had before this week, but let Pholus and Nessus through for the reasons you said, and also Vesta, Astraea, and Hygiea's astrological symbols as they're frankly more common than the astronomical ones at this point. (And anyway Ceres and Pallas are mostly astrological now). The extra Plutos are text-only, since they are astrological only, there's a much more common astronomical symbol, and it's not even Anglophone astrologers who usually use them. Eris gets only one symbol, since only one actually ever appeared in astronomy, and it's also the same one that is in Astrolog. Planet and dwarf planet have the symbols, though kind of as ornaments.
Re Uranus. Is the H+o symbol really so rare now? Double sharp ( talk) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not defendable for WP (until any use is found), but my favourite is definitely his Charon astrological symbol. The floating orb evokes both that of Pluto's bident symbol and how Pluto would look in Charon's night sky and vice versa, thanks to the mutual tidal locking: a great motionless orb. It has the moon symbol (since it's a moon), but lying on its side it evokes Charon's boat. It's truly inspired. I know it's already one of the Pluto alternatives, but for me it is definitely far better as a Charon symbol. :)
That said, for the other planemo moons, I wish he had tried for some sort of evocation of the mythology rather than just initial letters. Or at least a larger nod to astronomy than the circle representing Titan's atmosphere. Double sharp ( talk) 18:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh well, I suppose one could argue that Earth-Luna and Pluto-Charon are really "double planets" (or double worlds). In which case it makes more sense that the other moons get symbols very clearly based on their parent planets. But I'd still like a unique derivation for Titan, though probably still with Saturn's hook if we follow this logic. Double sharp ( talk) 07:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Can't help but notice that some other WP's seem to be taking them straight from Wikidata, e.g. Russian and Romanian Wikipedias. But I guess it is up to their own editorial choice. Double sharp ( talk) 10:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on whether Ixion makes the cut, since you added it? Double sharp ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of Ophiuchus for the constellation symbols? It's already there among Moskowitz's, but it has an earlier origin in sidereal astrology IIRC. Double sharp ( talk) 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It's in L2/09-027. It was adopted as an emoji], as part of the Japanese Carrier Set. It didn't have a dedicated proposal. — kwami ( talk) 17:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Jewitt and Sheppard argued in 2002: Several of the outer planet satellites are similar to Varuna in both size and density. For example, Saturnian satellite SIII Tethys has density ρ = 1210 ± 160 kg m−3 and is 524 ± 5 km in radius (Smith et al. 1982). The Uranian satellite UII Umbriel has density 1440 ± 280 m−3 and radius 595 ± 10 km (Smith et al. 1986). Even the much larger and, presumably, self-compressed object Iapetus (radius 730 ± 10 km) has a low density of only 1160 ± 90 kg m−3 (Smith et al. 1982). Internal porosity (due to the granular structure of the constituent materials) may account for the low densities of these satellites while simultaneously allowing rock fractions 0.28 ≤ ψ ≤ 0.66 (Kossacki and Leliwa-Kopystynski 1993). Within the uncertainties, these bodies all have densities consistent with that derived here for Varuna. Unlike Varuna, they are nearly spherical in shape, but this is because the satellites are tidally locked with rotation periods measured in days, not hours, and the centripetal accelerations are consequently very small. If rotating with Varuna’s angular momentum, they would adopt prolate body shapes and display large rotational lightcurves.
Varuna turned out not to be that large, but very interestingly, back then Tethys and Umbriel were thought to be denser than they actually are. If even Umbriel might not be solid, while orbiting a giant planet, I begin to suspect that the number of dwarf planets in the solar system might be hilariously small. But I'd like something more recent (not sure how much we could've learnt without a probe though). Double sharp ( talk) 17:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if Charon and Dysnomia should be included for comparison, since presumably being a TNO satellite is not actually that different from being an actual TNO. Do you have the values from this? Seems Dysnomia is a lot less dense than Eris. Double sharp ( talk) 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, re above about Haumea: true. It would kind of be "New Horizons 2" in a way, but I wonder if this wouldn't just harm the idea by making it seem like boring old hat "we've already done that". (Though I mourn the original concept which could have had an ice giant flyby. And possibly a UX25 flyby!)
Alas, I won't be surprised if anything beyond Jupiter is going to be just dreams for a while. But at least one giant-planet satellite system is way better than none. :) Double sharp ( talk) 22:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Ӏу. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#Ӏу until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
List of digraphs. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#List of digraphs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwami. I want to nominate
Czech language for FAC but
this edit you made could be problematic inasmuch as it contradicts "The phoneme represented by the letter ř (capital Ř) is often considered unique to Czech
" in the phonology section which is cited (to a 70 year old grammar book, so YMMV). Do you know of a source which discusses the raised alveolar fricative trill and its occurrence as a phoneme? –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 11:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Since the first asteroid inside Venus' orbit just got named (
594913 ʼAylóʼchaxnim), I'd like to ask how its name should be pronounced. Original naming citation is
here: The name 'Ayló'chaxnim means “Venus Girl” in the language of the Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians whose ancestral lands included Palomar Mountain.
Double sharp (
talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Found old sources that "Elutcax" or "Aylucha" is "Venus". So the -nim would seem to be the "Girl" part. — kwami ( talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The 2nd glottal stop is not normally written, as it's predictable. — kwami ( talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
However, the name Vulcan had already been used for a hypothetical planet between Mercury and the Sun. Although this planet was found not to exist, the term “vulcanoid” remains attached to any asteroid existing inside the orbit of Mercury, and the name Vulcan could not be accepted for one of Pluto’s satellites (also, Vulcan does not fit into the underworld mythological scheme).So apparently Vulcan is sort of regarded as "taken", but it doesn't explicitly say that it's being reserved for the first vulcanoid (though this does make me suspect that it is). Double sharp ( talk) 22:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I compiled a few recent-ish sources unequivocally calling those bodies DPs without qualification at User:Double sharp/Dwarf planets. It seems from Google Scholar searching that usually people stop at Orcus. Except Runyon, who apparently insists that everything over 400 km diameter is a DP ( example), and then proceeds to ignore even this very lax criterion and list Lempo as a DP (see Fig. 1). But he's clearly an outlier there.
For an explicit statement of the boundary, Barr and Schwamb call Orcus and up "dwarf planets" without qualification, but does not even call Salacia and Varda dwarf planet-sized. For them, they are just "mid-sized bodies", and imply that the lower limit for that is radius less than ~400 km, mentioning UX25. (Well, Varda was already known to be smaller than that, so tilde presumably means it's a rough estimate. But Sheppard et al. also think this radius is some kind of threshold between smaller and larger TNOs when discussing FY27, which they call a DP. I suppose that means that there's a transition going on from about 350 to 450 km.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Of the trans Neptunian objects, several of the largest bodies have been included alongside the planets Pluto and Charon. This includes the remaining IAU dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, and Haumea as well as Orcus, Salacia, Quaoar, Gonggong, and Sedna. Including these objects and not more was a subjective choice, given the relative confidence that these objects are large and massive enough to have spheroidal shapes. While there may be hundreds and perhaps thousands of trans-Neptunian planets, there is reason to believe that most candidate objects with diameters below 1000 km may be too porous to have reached shapes near equilibrium, given their low densities. This means even trans-Neptunian objects as large as Orcus and Salacia may not be planets. Regardless, more observations are required of these distant, poorly understood objects and the table is certainly open to revision.That said, while that's pretty reasonable, I find his inclusion of Uranus XV Puck really odd. (Yes, it's pretty spheroidal, but at that size, it is surely a coincidence. Soon we could argue for Saturn XXXII Methone to be a planet...) So, I am not sure how seriously I should take this, especially given the geophysical definition he starts off with (it's the one with the entertainingly bad wording
spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid).
The relatively high densities derived for Varda (>1.5 g cm−3) when we adopt the McLaurin solutions 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with low porosity for an object in this size range, which is pretty interesting given what Grundy et al. wrote about Varda's size range. I suspect that the general opinion of objects around 700-900 km is in flux and that there isn't really a consensus about whether this is large enough to mostly collapse out porosity. I guess we just need more data.
While the first point provides a fairly clear and objective condition (the presence or absence of nuclear fusion within the object at some point in its existence), the second point is intentionally more lax and inclusive. While an individual rock or pile of gravel orbiting the sun would be called a planet by no one, and the Earth is accepted as a planet by all, the distinction between small, irregular objects and gravitationally rounded bodies is not always clear-cut. Judging whether an object’s shape satisfies the hydrostatic equilibrium condition depends on precise knowledge of its size, mass, internal composition, rotational period, and other factors. As such, an object that initially formed with an equilibrium shape may later fall out of equilibrium if its rotational period changes, its shape is eroded by impacts, etc. While some earlier physical definitions explicitly mention the hydrostatic equilibrium condition, the revised geophysical definition leaves the precise amount of gravitational roundness open for debate and interpretation. After all, objects like Mercury and Venus deviate from ideal hydrostatic equilibrium, and no planetary body has a perfectly smooth, ideal shape.
unfortunately, even that wording is sloppy! Changing rotation rates and impacts do not cause a body to "fall out of equilibrium", they only make it obvious that it no longer is in equilibrium. Again, we seem to be back to the idea that "hydrostatic equilibrium" means appearance, not geophysical properties.
I'll have to look. — kwami ( talk) 22:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S. With nine consensus dwarfs, four large-ish bodies that should have mostly collapsed internally but not resurfaced (with potentially FY27 coming if we get something better on its size), and eight planets and one Sun to keep apart from them, my inspiration for the colouring has pretty much become the Tokyo rail network map. XD Double sharp ( talk) 11:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Re the designations: got them from JPL. Xiangliu (S/2010 (225088) 1), Ilmarë (S/2009 (174567) 1), Weywot (S/2006 (50000) 1), Vanth (S/2005 (90482) 1). So I'll add them back. Double sharp ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That said, the moon of 2013 FY27 is apparently undesignated. Same for the unconfirmed moon of 2003 AZ84. Double sharp ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
What the German Wikipedia does for unnamed moons: de:(208996) 2003 AZ84 1, de:S/2018 (532037) 1. Double sharp ( talk) 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I added AZ84 and its moon to the lists ( Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, List of natural satellites). Admittedly the moon is lost, but at least 700 km is a good cutoff, and anyway the low-density result assumes it's in HE (which it might not be; by the book this would make it not a dwarf in either case, but probably people would just ignore it like for Mercury). And anyway there are many lost moons in there too, e.g. S/2003 J 10, and our only source for not finding it is a tweet. From Mike Brown, but doesn't really stop our other sources (including JPL) from listing AZ84 among binaries.
BTW, we have an 83rd moonlet of Saturn now: S/2019 S 1. Double sharp ( talk) 00:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Although, LOL at the anachronisms at the JPL page: "S/1978 (134340) 1" for Charon. :D Double sharp ( talk) 23:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
They really do remind me of the Witch runes from Puella Magi Madoka Magica, LOL. Double sharp ( talk) 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I reverted a problematic editor, but retained your pronunciation edit. Your edit was flagged as reverted. Cheers Adakiko ( talk) 03:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
It's clear I'm not the only one with problems with your intended change to the "Earth" symbol. From Earth Mass history
curprev 14:42, 29 November 2021 Double sharp talk contribs 171 bytes +2 Undid revision 1057801525 by Tom.Reding (talk) it's still not the right symbol. the problem is not your browser but whether you have a font with the right symbol rollback: 1 editundothank Tag: Undo curprev 14:25, 29 November 2021 Tom.Reding talk contribs 169 bytes −2 Undid revision 1048791519 by Kwamikagami (talk) Displays as a box in Chrome undothank Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 20:46, 7 October 2021 Kwamikagami talk contribs 171 bytes +2 that's a mathematical operator, not the symbol for Earth, which is 🜨 undothank Tag: Reverted curprev 01:31, 11 July 2021 ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ talk contribs 169 bytes −42 Rm interlanguage link to deleted target. They are hosted in wikidata now, so rm msg too undothank curprev 16:12, 12 October 2020 Lithopsian talk contribs 211 bytes −2 Undid revision 982466559 by NuclearElevator (talk) needs discussion, does not display correctly in all browsers undothank Tag: Undo curprev 05:44, 8 October 2020 NuclearElevator talk contribs 213 bytes +2 Re-introduced character change. It's been changed on template:val undothank Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 05:05, 8 October 2020 NuclearElevator talk contribs 211 bytes −2 holding off on the character change until template:val is changed too undothank Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 04:22, 8 October 2020 NuclearElevator talk contribs 213 bytes +2 Using ALCHEMICAL SYMBOL FOR VERDIGRIS (U+1F728, 🜨) instead of CIRCLED PLUS (U+2295, ⊕) undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reverted
While using that symbol as a subscript may be "more correct", it's clear that support is not universal. Tarl N. ( discuss) 19:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Tom.Reding: @ Double sharp: For the record, looking at the back-and-forth diffs, on Earth-mass, this is how that symbol renders under all my equipment (I am absolutely clean on fonts - nothing special). On the left side is what Tom had converted it back to, on the right is the "correct" Earth symbol, which renders as an indistinguishable blob.
Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 23:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
There are tens of thousands of articles on WP-en that you can't read all of without extra fonts." I have yet to run into one of them. You're saying that a newcomer looking up something on Wikipedia shouldn't be able to understand articles unless he installs some unspecified special fonts from somewhere equally unspecified? How are they supposed to know? Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
Contains special characters}}
.
Double sharp (
talk) 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)BTW, I believe WP has started providing web fonts so that articles and symbols are displayed for those who don't have font support. But I don't know anything about that or where we'd go to get the Earth symbol added. — kwami ( talk) 02:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Just letting you know the issues from March are ongoing. Libhye ( talk) 04:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
How do you get the zodiac symbols to not display as emoji? Because I added Ophiuchus to Astronomical symbol#Symbols for zodiac and other constellations. I'd like some sources for it: had been holding off on adding it, but eventually I felt it was too important.
Also, do you have a source for the galaxy symbol at the bottom of the page? Double sharp ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami. The article has been in error since April, why are you reverting back in a cite error? If the issue is with the template then the template should be fixed, but we shouldn't just leave cite errors in article space. I see you marked as inactive, so I'll wait a few days and revert back if I don't here from you. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
You are uploading rongorongos claiming them to be fair use and putting multiple rationales and copyright tags. This is considered licence trolling and your images are now being changed to public domain.-- Alex Mitchell of The Goodies ( talk) 02:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
You will also be discussed at the Teahouse.-- Alex Mitchell of The Goodies ( talk) 03:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
It turns out the issue has been discussed on the talk page. The main participant seems to think that we are prescribing and proscribing pronunciations and telling readers how they should pronounce Manlia, being patronizing in the process, rather than simply informing readers of a certain pronunciation, leaving them to do what they want with it or nothing at all. They also repeat the incorrect notion that the Classical Latin pronunciation of Manlia can be predicted from the spelling. Libhye ( talk) 11:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, in 2014 Stern said that "at least eight more objects (Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, Ixion, Varuna, 2002 AW197, Pallas and Vesta) may well be round enough to fit the IAU's dwarf-planet definition". Well, I guess with that wording he was talking about candidates. Though it's weird that he included Vesta, after Dawn. Double sharp ( talk) 09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Avilich (
talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaeo-Portuguese until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
BilCat ( talk) 07:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This is just to let you know that the Wikimedia ZA AGM will be taking place on 25 September 2021 See below for more details.
Hi Kwamikagami, unfortunately that nobody agrees to fix our IP problem. I know that you are not an administrator at the French Wiktionnaire. If you became an administrator at the French Wiktionnaire, maybe you would agree to change our block duration, haha, it's a joke. Joe Pig ( talk) 17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, hurray! Our problem is fixed ! Joe Pig ( talk) 18:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You wrote mysteriously that Stearn's assessment of the historic derivation of planetary symbols has been questioned by later research. Well earlier today I transferred the material you deleted from Gender symbols into Planet symbols#Classical planets, citing Stearn as the RS.
The symbols for Mars, Venus and Mercury are derived from the initial letters of the Ancient Greek names of these classical planets. [1] [a]
So do tell! If you point me in the right direction, I'm happy to draft something. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
At planetary symbols, Jones (1999) Astronomical papyri from Oxyrhynchu, which were discovered after Stearns wrote; "It is now possible to trace the medieval symbols for at least four of the five planets to forms that occur in some of the latest papyrus horoscopes ... Mercury's is a stylized caduceus. ... The ideal form of Mars' symbol is uncertain, and perhaps not related to the later circle with an arrow through it."
One problem w Renkema's speculation reported by Stearn is that he attempts to account for the Christian cross that was added in the 16th century as part of the original Greek abbreviation. He also doesn't seem to recognize that a stroke was added to an abbreviation to mark it as an abbreviation (much like a period is today); only in Z-stroke for Zeus does he have that. He appears to have just been making stuff up. Does anyone still consider Renkema to be likely?
But we really shouldn't have anything at gender symbols per FORK. Too hard to keep things up to date when ppl wouldn't know to look there.
Need to check further reg. Mercury for hybrids. Maybe Linnaeus used the same symbol for both hybrids and hermaphrodite flowers? — kwami ( talk) 23:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
However. the earliest surviving Linnaean manuscript, first printed in 1957 (as Linnaeus, Ortabok) but compiled by Linnaeus in 1725 at the age of 18, shows that by then he had copied them from the Pharmacopoca Leovardensis (1687; 2nd ed., 1698); see Figure 2. In his Systema Naturae (Leyden, 1735) he used them with their traditional associations for metals. Their first biological use is in the Linnaean dissertation Plantae hybridae xxx sistit J. J. Haartman (1751) where in discussing hybrid plants Linnaeus denoted the supposed female parent species by the sign ♀, the male parent by the sign ♂, the hybrid by
⚥[☿] "matrem signo ♀, patrem ♂ & plantam hybridam⚥[☿] designavero". In subsequent publications he retained the signs ♂ and ♀ for male and female individuals but discarded⚥[☿] for hybrids; the last are now indicated by the multiplication sign ×. Linnaeus's first general use of the signs of ♂ and ♀ was in his Species Plantarum (1753) written between 1746 and 1752 and surveying concisely the whole plant kingdom as then known.— Stearn,The Origin of the Male and Female Symbols of Biology [1]
It looks like Linnaeus never used ⚥ at all. He used ☿ first for hybrids and later for 'perfect' flowers. (He also used ♂ for more than one meaning: male parent, biennial and male.) Current usage is × for hybrids and ⚥ for perfect/bisexual flowers. The fn 12 at planetary symbols should now be accurate -- I corrected it against the original (minor errors) and expanded it to cover the 2nd use.
Re. Mantissa Plantarum, ☿ is used for "Hermaphroditus flos" on p. 21 (#1283) — kwami ( talk) 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The origin of these symbols has long been of interest to scholars. Probably none now accepts the interpretation of Scaliger that ♂ represents the shield and spear of Mars and ♀ Venus's looking glass.( Joseph Justus Scaliger speculated that the male symbol is associated with Mars, god of war because it resembles a shield and spear; and that the female symbol is associated with Venus, goddess of beauty because it resembles a bronze mirror with a handle.[Taylor, Robert B. (2016), "Now and Future Tales", White Coat Tales, Springer International Publishing, pp. 293–310, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29055-3_12, ISBN 978-3-319-29053-9] Later scholars dismiss this as fanciful, the visual equivalent of a backronym, preferring "the conclusion of the French classical scholar Claude de Saumaise (Salmasius, 1588–1683) that these symbols [...] are derived from contractions in Greek script of the Greek names of the planets".)
Hi kwami,
After bringing it to GA status, I've listed the Levantine Arabic for peer review here in hopes of bringing it to FA status. As you previously participated in discussions on this article's talk page and because it would be my first FAC, I would love to get your feedback on this peer-review and maybe your assistance in the preparation and processing of the nomination.
Thanks for any help you can provide, A455bcd9 ( talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Please give sources for pronunciations that you add (such as those at Monoicy and Monoecy). There is wide variation in the way that such scientific terms are pronounced in my experience. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Haven't seen you on an edit page for ages. I just thought I'd let you know that the Interlingue page has gotten too large to be the only page on the language and in its most recent Good Article review it was recommended that some of the finer details be shuffled off into their own articles. One recommended one was Comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua which I've started, while Grammar of Interlingue and History of Interlingue haven't yet but once they become their own pages then a lot of the grammar and historical parts are going to get moved off there to give the main page some space to breathe. I hope to get the main page down to about 100,000 bytes by the end but we'll see.
(And since you're a phonology and grammar guy, feel free to start the grammar page if you ever feel like it...if not I'll get around to it after the comparison and the history page, which are my two strengths for the subject) Mithridates ( talk) 13:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Do I understand correctly that you replaced the description of the symbol picture because it will not produce coherent text when copied? Well, now when I move my cursor on the picture I see an empty square and when I copy it, a square with question mark instead of the actual symbol or a human-readable description. Adeliine ( talk) 09:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)