Happy New Year ! Are you still an administrator from Wikipedia? CFDG123 ( talk) 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
You've been blocked as a sock puppet, so this is no longer just a matter of your school's IP being blocked fro vandalism. I don't know the reasons you were blocked and am not going to second-guess them, so I suggest that you contact the blocking or another admin directly. You should be able to email them, either from an IP or from a new account. — kwami ( talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The Japanese Chu Shogi Association (JCSA) has a table detailing the names and movements of all the pieces in Dai, Tenjiku, Dai Dai, Maka Dai Dai, and Tai here. The promotion-only pieces are on the next page.
If I understand it correctly, promotion in Tai is often not described, and one assumes that it is the same as in smaller variants (登場するが詳細不明で、先に登場する将棋での成り駒に準ずるものと思われる。) The problem that they don't seem to mention, though, is that Dai Dai and Maka Dai Dai often have the same pieces promote differently, so it is not certain which should be followed.
For pieces that first appear in Tai, it is mentioned explicitly that they do not promote there, which directly contradicts Japanese Wikipedia and agrees with the English sources. On the other hand, for pieces that only appear in Maka Dai Dai and Tai, not describing the Tai promotion seems to imply that it must be as in Maka Dai Dai (i.e. Coiled Serpent, Reclining Dragon, etc.), and so those should become "free" pieces as in Maka Dai Dai rather than not promoting at all. That said, some promotions don't match Japanese Wikipedia or the English sources: in Maka Dai Dai, we have Phoenix and Kirin promote to Golden Bird and Great Dragon as in Dai Dai, but according to JCSA they become Queen and Lion as in Chu.
I'd like to eventually go through this and check it against our diagrams to see if the moves match. If I understand correctly, a lot of them don't, though surely you can read Japanese better than me. :D But in some cases the moves listed do seem corrupt and they say so (e.g. Southern Barbarian in Dai Dai). And also, maybe it should be noted that the games are now also pretty well-known in the English rules (even if sometimes they do not accord with the historical sources), and for Dai Dai, Maka Dai Dai, and Tai, I don't think it makes that much of a difference if some of the weak step movers and range movers have changed moves when it's really the power pieces that run the show. If realistically the standard way to play them now has become the English rules, with some adaptations such as adopting the Japanese Wikipedia version of the Lion Dog as The Chess Variant Pages does, then I guess it makes sense to describe the games this way as the present step in their evolution. After all, these do not agree even with the JCSA's rules for Chu, regarding a minor point in the Lion-trading rules. Double sharp ( talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this Tai Shogi set could've answered the question. On the other hand, Showa-era rules for Chu Shogi don't completely match the known historical practice on some minutiae about promotion and Lion-trading. Double sharp ( talk) 12:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Gosh, there's a disagreement as early as Dai: the Evil Wolf is said on this page to move as Silver General. Though Japanese Wikipedia also says that's so in the SZ and SSZ: 『象戯図式』および元禄九年版『諸象戯図式』では、斜め四方と前方に動けるとしている。これは銀将と同じ動きである。I looked a little bit into Dai Dai, and the first few (e.g. Left and Right Chariots) do seem to follow some of the footnote-variants in jawiki about what the Edo-era sources read. But well, if the Japanese Wikipedia isn't following those, and neither are the English sources, then I'm not sure if the Edo-era sources should be taken as the "correct description" if that's not how anyone is actually playing the game, insofar as that ever happens. I mean, Chess is not Shatranj either. :D Double sharp ( talk) 12:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In Issue No. 25 we advertised Wa Shogi sets and stated that the game was played with drops. Current research seems to indicate that this is not the case and although the evidence for this is far from overwhelming, TSA now takes the official view that the game is indeed played without drops. A new leaflet has been prepared and the sets are now available with that new leaflet.So I guess TSA was not shy of making "official" decisions to get people to play by a single set of rules, though I don't know the Japanese scholars they worked with felt about that decision. And he also wrote
The published rules of Dai Shogi and the larger games that appeared in The Great Shogi games booklet can now regrettably only be seen as playable versions of these games and as mentioned in the historical section above it seems unlikely that hard and fast rules can be established for these variants as it would appear that they were never played at all!But perhaps the rules from Hodges' 2002 document Ten Shogi Variants were changed from that, since before 1980 they had some different promotions in Dai, too. Double sharp ( talk) 09:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
BTW, there was recently a modern Japanese attempt to revive Maka Dai Dai, but with yet another different set of rules. Not sure what became of it, since the site seems to have disappeared off the Internet. Double sharp ( talk) 09:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I want you to know that I've submitted a grant proposal to translate and proofread essential phrases from English to Twi on translatewiki.net I will be very happy if you have feedback on the application, and if you want to endorse it!. Thank you -- Robertjamal12 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Since it seems that sub-brown dwarfs can form even as low as 1 Jupiter mass, I wonder how clearing the neighbourhood will work for such systems. I don't think we want planet Pan if we look at the Saturnian system, but it seems to "clear the neighbourhood" pretty well by carving out a clear channel in the rings. :D Double sharp ( talk) 08:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely. The dynamic def happens to work for us, but I suspect that's coincidental. But the point of this mess was to guide a bureaucratic decision on naming Eris. Like you said, the IAU could've simply said the MPC gets to approve all names in the SS, or could've used their magnitude-1 criterion for a joint committee without defining anything. — kwami ( talk) 08:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason why you shouldn't put something about these on the philately page, although a fuller note should probably appear under postal history, which cancallations are part of. Sbishop ( talk) 07:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Metzger claims on his blog that "over a Hubble time it will relax to roundness again according to some estimates"; do you have any idea what source there might be for this? (I don't see him giving one.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Minor planets include dwarfs but not comets, SSSBs include comets but not dwarfs. — kwami ( talk) 10:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The term "minor planet" may still be used. But generally the term small Solar System body will be preferred.The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology agrees that they're supposedly synonyms, though their definition mentions that "minor planet" historically was more a synonym for "asteroid" and that SSSB includes comets. OTOH, the dwarfs are in the MPC catalogue, but not the comets, as you have it. Double sharp ( talk) 10:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Or better yet not define anything, give the MPC authority to name all bodies (or a joint committee to name bodies with H < +1), and let the field work itself out. Which is what's going to happen anyway.
I don't know if they came up with SSSB to conflate MP and comet, which were getting ambiguous, or if that was also in the air. — kwami ( talk) 11:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Huh, on Google Scholar there are still some people calling Vesta a DP post-Dawn. Definitely a minority, though. Can't see anyone calling Pallas a DP now. Double sharp ( talk) 12:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to include Titania and Oberon on that list at Planet, since they're the last that were actually called "secondary planets" in their discovery papers, but I can't actually find any ref for them being numbered I and II between 1787 and 1797 (when Herschel reported four more nonexistent satellites, thus messing up the numbering). Lassell vacillated between the I-II and II-IV numberings, until finally he fixed them as III-IV when he found Ariel and Umbriel; but that's way past any primary-source use of "satellite planet"/"secondary planet" for a new discovery.
That said, I wonder why Herschel said "secondary planet" when talking about Titania and Oberon, but not when talking about Mimas and Enceladus just two years later. I don't think it's likely that the language changed that fast. Given that he only says "secondary planet" once in the discovery paper for Titania and Oberon, perhaps it was just a rhetorical flourish. Or maybe it was considered common knowledge that satellites were planets, so he didn't feel the need to say it two years later. Who knows. Double sharp ( talk) 20:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about the roman numerals, as long as we ID which is which. After all, several are likely to be anachronistic even in RS's. Or we could spell them out as 'first' and 'second' if you like, though that could get a bit bulky in a table.
It could be that Herschel changed his conception of the SS between Titania/Oberon and Mimas/Enceladus. But likely he just happened to not use the words. It's not like he was making a point by calling them "planets", or that he needed to get that on the record. Still, best IMO we stick to ones that were actually called planets and remain agnostic about the rest. — kwami ( talk) 21:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You can't copy the table out of Laycock's book into the table. That would be a copyvio. Skyerise ( talk) 05:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so you're spuriously claiming you're reverting copyright violations as a way to get around 3RR. Well, I can claim to be reverting vandalism. You're the one making the changes, so it's you who needs to justify them when challenged. — kwami ( talk) 05:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Your copyvio rates 85% similarity. Not gonna fly. Skyerise ( talk) 05:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The Cambridge Planetary Science volume on Jupiter is fully available online. There's a lot of other stuff on the site it's on, too. :) Double sharp ( talk) 23:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
20:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
21:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this page on the Ewe Wikipedia. There is only a picture here and I am not sure why it is labelled as 'xexe' The page is linked to Earth on the English Wikipedia. So far as I am aware, earth is not xexe in Ewe. It is anyigba. Am I mistaken?-- Natsubee ( talk) 01:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Its density (~2.5 g/cm3) seems to be high enough to indicate that it must be mostly rocky. Double sharp ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of overlap between terrestrial and icy worlds. Some that are usually thought of as icy worlds, like Eris and Europa, are actually mostly rock and metal with only a thin veneer of ice and/or water on top.Though this is also an article that classes Europa as icy, so doesn't prove much.
Webb will observe Mars and the giant planets, minor planets like Pluto and Eris - and even the small bodies in our solar system: asteroids, comets, and Kuiper Belt Objects.That said, might not see much.
Here (1:30). Uses circle+down-arrow for Eris. Double sharp ( talk) 13:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I noticed that the Chen+Kipping source I mentioned for the planetary symbols does not use a symbol for Pluto even though Pluto is plotted in the chart. Luna is in the same situation. Though maybe that was for consistency with the other DPs and moons plotted (Eris; Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Rhea, Titan, Titania, Oberon, Triton). Double sharp ( talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I like the paper a lot, but shouldn't we de-emphasise its conclusions a bit because of its age? They're currently in a lot of pages like Rhea, Ariel, Orcus, Planetary-mass moon, etc. It models that subsurface oceans could exist today on Sedna and Orcus because of radiogenic heating, but only because it was assumed then that Orcus had a ~1600 km diameter (they cite this 2004 study). We now know that it's more like just over half that. Given that they noted that Quaoar at then-assumed ~1300 km could not support one, it seems to me that only Haumea, Makemake (not covered in this study), and Eris still are plausible candidates under this model.
The other thing is that while their model suggests the possibility of a subsurface ocean for Rhea, it seems like later measurements suggest that Rhea's interior is homogeneous, and so there would not be one. Also, the model does not account for tidal heating on bodies like Enceladus, where it would be important, and they admit that. Presumably this is why Dione, although too small for this model, may still have one today; and also why objects like Miranda and Ariel are considered today as candidates (because they may have been in resonance recently enough to still have the subsurface ocean today). Admittedly this wouldn't be much of a factor for the TNOs.
Finally the study also seems to be a bit optimistic about freezing-point depression from ammonia, according to
this later 2016 review (maller bodies like Charon or Rhea have too little radiogenic heat to maintain an ocean at present, unless very severe melting-point depression is invoked [Hussmann et al., 2006].
) Rhea we now know probably doesn't have an ocean, as I just said, and there's some evidence that Charon's
froze long ago.
Double sharp (
talk)
15:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems CNSA might
grant my wish after all: JCO and JSO would study the size, mass, and composition of Jupiter’s irregular satellites—those captured by Jupiter rather than formed in orbit, and often in distant, elliptical and even retrograde orbits—complementing science conducted by NASA’s Europa Clipper and Lucy missions, as well as the European Space Agency’s JUICE mission.
Then the concepts diverge, with JCO going to Callisto and JSO to Io and then Sol-Jupiter L1. Well, with proposals like this and the Quaoar one, it seems like no matter what flies, it'll be really cool. :D
Double sharp (
talk)
19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Template:Aleph and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Template:Aleph until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
08:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
21:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
That includes 3RR notices when there are not 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. That's intentional bullying and harassment. If you can't count three reverts, you are misusing the warning. Skyerise ( talk) 04:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
From a
2019 paper: The new solution likewise confirms that, despite Titan's considerable excess flattening, its interior has relaxed to a state compatible with hydrostatic equilibrium with a moment of inertia factor close to 0.341, though the presence of such significant non-hydrostatic topography is a reminder that hydrostatic equilibrium is not guaranteed, precluding a definitive determination of the moment of inertia.
So, shape is consistent with HE, but it depends on the internal structure. More or less like Callisto. (Which raises the distinct possibility that under the geophysical definition read strictly, Ganymede could end up standing in splendid isolation as the only actual satellite planet. But obviously that's not the intended reading.)
Double sharp (
talk)
16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you mentioned that Proxima b and c are probably its "giants", and I ran the numbers and found that indeed you could have something orbiting Proxima that would clear its orbit but still not be big enough to be round:
Well, maybe we could do a similar take on the ring-moon systems of our neighbours. Well, Jupiter's "inner planets" are clearly the Amalthea group, with "asteroid belts" (rings) between them. Further out are its four "giant planets": the Galilean moons. Then it has an "Oort cloud" of irregular satellites. (Which is indeed pretty much a spherical cloud that doesn't care about being in the plane of the system at all!) Similar takes for Saturn and Uranus: we even have "Kirkwood gaps" in Saturn's rings, caused by Mimas as "Saturn's rather diminutive Jupiter". Neptune clearly stands as a warning to stars trying to capture rogue giant planets. :D
(Which means that shepherd moons have "cleared the neighbourhood", and would be planets if one thought of Jupiter and Saturn as sub-brown dwarfs. Which is a bit silly, but probably just goes to illustrate that the IAU definition really has two notions fighting each other, roundness and orbital dominance, and that the fact that one is subsumed in the other for our Solar System is only a coincidence. Not to mention that this suggests that an extrasolar Janus and Epimetheus, or extrasolar trojan planets, might not be far-fetched at all!) Double sharp ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this suggests that we should actually see subsatellites of irregular satellites. Further in it wouldn't work, for reasons similar to why Mercury and Venus don't have moons. And indeed it seems likely that Saturn's Kiviuq is at least a contact binary. Double sharp ( talk) 00:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Marius' suggestion of "the Mercury of Jupiter" (Io), "the Venus of Jupiter" (Europa), "the Jupiter of Jupiter" (Ganymede), and "the Saturn of Jupiter" (Callisto) seems to accord with the "Jovian frost line" pretty well. :D
BTW, I found a 1916 English translation of Marius' 1614 Mundus Jovialis. Double sharp ( talk) 22:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Kwamikagami, Could you please look into the changes you made on this symbol? Its size and overall design is not fitting with the male counterpart anymore which makes this table look quite uneven. I don’t have the required permissions, so please take action :) Thanks and BR -- Affegass ( talk) 10:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Saltillocap has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk
09:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cinadon 36 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I would like to understand why you undid the modification I made to Chile on the same-sex marriage list. As I see you not only undid it but you proceeded to do the exact same change afterwards putting your name instead of yours.
Care to explain me why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1239 ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Here. So I guess now even popular-facing articles aren't sticking to the 5-dwarfs line. Double sharp ( talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Kwamigami. I've noticed your replacement of zodiac signs on German Wikipedia [1].
Now, I'm not against colored zodiac signs in general, but this version just doesn't make sense. I can see you've obviously used a coloring scheme based on planetary rulers for each sign from *ASTROLOGY*, but pretty much no astrologist on earth uses or recognizes Ophiuchus as an actual *ZODIAC SIGN* instead of just a constellation. The only people who do are *ASTRONOMERS*, and they definitely don't recognize planetary rulership. Moreover, even the color scheme based on planetary ruiers that you've picked is the ruler system from Classical Antiquity when only 7 planets were known, while ever since the 19th century, the vast majority of astrologers use Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto as new rulers for Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio ever since their respective discoveries.
On top of it all, it's highly uncommon in astrology to color signs based on their ruler. If anything, they're usually colored by which element they belong to (red for Fire, green for Earth, yellow for Air, and blue for Water). -- 2003:EF:1702:2734:15BC:BB02:AFCE:CFCE ( talk) 11:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So the TfD for {{
saltillocap}}
got closed as being no consensus, but I think a good approach for this (as well as others) might be to add a parameter caps=
to {{
saltillo}}
that displays the majescule with a non-blank value so that we can essentially merge them. I think you'd be less likely to run into issues of having these kinds of character entry templates going to TfD for being unused if they were naturally twice as likely to be used in any given circumstance. It's especially likely to help where the caps form is a modern back formation, so is much less likely to be used outside of limited presentation circumstances. Just a thought.
Van
Isaac, MPLL
cont
WpWS
20:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi kwami, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to this article in the past (and looked at it when we had a conflict with another user...) and given your expertise in linguistics, I thought you could be interested in reviewing it. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 ( talk) 14:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
So exactly how does one pronounce implosives? I'm not quite getting a lot out of our article on them. Okay, I'm supposed to pull my glottis downward: how do I do that and how do I know I've done it right?
(Asking because Vietnamese is on my language wishlist. But when listening to their b and đ I can't quite hear what I'm supposed to be doing different. It would be nice to know how to do it properly. :D) Double sharp ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like you to have a look at this edit and others like it. Drmies ( talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, I noticed that in your file File:Trans-New_Guinea_languages_(Usher_2018).svg, specifically in the section for Timor-Alor-Pantar languages, the island of Leti to the east of Timor is being shaded green (for Trans-New Guinea families) while the island of Kisar (nearby, also to the east of Timor) is being shaded yellow for being Austronesian. However, the information I'm seeing is that on Leti, the Austronesian Leti language is spoken on Leti while the Trans-New Guinean Oirata language is being spoken on Kisar. I wonder if this is a mistake in the graph and, if so, whether you'd be open to changing it. - Erictxcao ( talk) 09:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho ( talk) 05:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It is a complex sentence, but from my perspective it's missing that word. Otherwise it reads odd, from an English perspective. "or collectively his followers in the 15th century" Note that this clause is incomplete and doesn't make sense. Within the context it can be understood though still it reads poorly. I cannot see a justification to remove the "by" and will revert it, though I am curious to hear your thinking. Jhonevans ( talk) 16:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
→Upon re-reading I see that you were right. My apologies. Jhonevans ( talk) 16:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
![]()
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. ( t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
In a recent edit to Kinyarwanda, you removed the [ɡ] from the phonetic representation of the orthographic sequence rw, calling it a “stupid claim” that “makes no sense.”
But rw is indeed generally realized as a [ɾɡw] sequence in Rwandan and this claim is made by all the classic works of Rwandan grammar. To give only a few examples, please consult Coupez, Abrégé de grammaire rwanda, vol. 1, pp. 32, 34, Bizimana et al., Imiteêrere y’îkinyarwaanda, vol. 1, pp. 23, 25 and Shimamungu, Le kinyarwanda : initiation à une langue bantu, p. 17. The sequence is also audible 20 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJL6yqpdQw&t=0m20s. I could cite many more sources.
I do note that the sequence you edited had oblique strokes around it, incorrectly indicating that it was phonemic. It is true that there should be no /g/ in the phonemic representation, but the context made clear that this was supposed to be a phonetic representation, so I changed it to use square brackets accordingly. It appears to me that you were asserting that there should be no [ɡ] in the phonetic representation.
As far as I can see, you cited no sources for your edit. Please share any sources that have led you to this conclusion. Do be aware that labialization of a non-dorsal consonant in Rwandan generally entails the insertion of a velar consonant with the same sonority and manner of articulation as the consonant being labialized.
Ciringacenjunga ( talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Kwamikagami! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
and now I'm embarrassed because he points out you started it. It's just unacceptable to call what is a content dispute vandalism. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This may be completely random, but is there a particular system that you use to make a colored map of the United States, as in File:Abortion availability in the US by fetal gestational age.svg. ? I would like to be able to do that for other projects both on and off Wikipedia, and I was just curious. TNstingray ( talk) 01:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Per User talk:Double sharp/Archive 19#Salacia – wait, so is DM on board with this new "Latin" Salacia? Double sharp ( talk) 09:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Your recent edit at United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Change in status by administering state seems to have a created an issue with the table at row - New Caledonia. Can you fix this? Dhruv edits ( talk) 06:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you add information about the new names for Arrokoth's lobes that were mentioned in McKinnon et al.'s recently-published Geophysical Research Letter? I figured I'd ask you since you're knowledgeable when it comes to name origins and meanings. As far I'm aware of, there hasn't been any formal announcement of the new lobe names "Weeyo" and "Wenu", let alone the introduction of "lobus" as the formal term for lobe features. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In the graph World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg, China is set to blue which is very misleading. The author set it to blue as he/she thought China had legal guardianship law. But this law was made for any two consenting adults. It is not for same-sex couples benefits at all! Actually, the Chinese government is trying to weaken its usage by same-sex couples. Such laws can be found in many other countries. Since it's not made for same-sex relationship protection or recognition purpose, as a Chinese citizen, I strongly suggest that we change China from Limited domestic legal recognition to Same-sex unions not legally recognized. e.g. Almost all the countries have laws allowing a person to nominate his/her heir by will, which can be taken advantaged by same-sex couples. Does this mean that all countries have limited domestic legal recognition? The answer is obviously No unless this country has special laws for inheritance between same-sex couples. If we set China to blue, why don't we do so to many other grey countries which also have similar legal guardianship laws between two consenting adults? Thank you very much! Hueofwind ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input on this topic to resolve some long disputed issues about modern Taino movements. /info/en/?search=Talk:Taíno#Request_for_Comment_on_Modern_Taino_Identity Poketama ( talk) 01:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw in the article Hlubi language you originally called Hlubi/amaHlubi a dialect of Xhosa, and I'm not a Xhosa speaker but it seems to contradict some stuff online including the Tribal commission document, now used as a source in the article, that categorizes Hlubi as "similar to amaSwazi" (and others online just call it a dialect of Swazi). I don't know if it can be considered closer to Swazi or Xhosa, but Ethnologue ( archived copy) does not classify Swazi as a dialect of Xhosa or vice-versa, and they seem to classify Hlubi as a dialect of Swazi/Swati ( archived copy). I'm going to make the change on the page for now since I have the RS, but if you have a source, please bring it. SamuelRiv ( talk) 13:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
What is your opinion on adding Braille to articles? I noticed it done on the Braille article, and figured it would be a good idea to add it to other relevant articles as well, but a blind admin has deleted both my added Braille and the Braille that was already on Wikipedia. As I see it, this is no different from adding any other relevant script, and making an exception for Braille would need consensus, but my opponent sees Braille as a special case and feels that including Braille would need consensus. There's a discussion on my talk page. Libhye ( talk) 06:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
[2] Per WP:TPG please don't refactor talk page discussions as you did here. This gives the false impression of the discussion as it unfolds. W C M email 07:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
===Discussion===
as kwami did in
this edit is one of the most common resectioning edits and is seen often in many discussions across Wikipedia, and is both fully within the recommendations of the guideline, and is supported by broad community support and a very long history of such usage.
Mathglot (
talk)
20:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Hi, kwami,
In this comment of yours at Template talk:Infobox language, you mentioned the Hadza. That gave me a deja-vu feeling. By sheer happenstance when looking for something entirely different, I ran into some notes I had taken for a forthcoming template for parsing citations, and the citation example I had in my notes happens to be Groyecka et al., 2019 in which the Hadza were included as subjects in some research on perception. My next question, though, was where the heck did I get that reference? Turns out, it was from an article I created last year, called Gendered associations of pink and blue. In the § Academic research section, if you follow note 41, you'll see it links to the source " Similarities in Color Preferences Between Women and Men: The Case of Hadza, the Hunter-Gatherers From Tanzania", and was included in the article in an attempt to broaden the scope beyond just Western subjects. So, nothing to do with language at all, nor even Hadza culture per se, although related to one minor aspect of it.
In any case, "deja vu" mystery solved, and you'll also find a Hadza image which is used only in the pink & blue article, and might make a good addition to one of the Hadza articles, and there are plenty more Hadza images available. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi kwami,
I was wondering why you created c:File:Trans woman power symbol.svg, and c:File:Trans woman power symbol (purple).svg. Aside from the default size being 15x15 pixels, and the second file being coloured in purple, it seems otherwise identical to c:File:A Transfeminist-Symbol black-and-white.svg. I'm particularly concerned that this breaks the attribution of the file, as the original file was the creation of User:Adarkhairedone, however the two files that you have created say that you're the original author and have uploaded it as your own work. This is particularly important, as the original file is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 which requires attribution to the original author, in this case Adarkhairedone, which is not done on either file.
Could you shed some light on this please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and if you could also address why you've been removing usage of the original file, and replacing it with your recreations please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kwamikagami,
I'm gonna start, what I have to say, of by first stating that I'm of the opinion that anybody who "believes" in UFO's is either crazy or dumb. Having said that I think you were wrong to delete the above article. Whatever opinion you or I hold, UFO's are part of human culture and there has been research by "academia" (however you want to define that) into it. WP attempts to collect "the sum of all human knowledge" (words by Jimmy Wales) and this topic should be in WP.
Regards,
Dutchy45 (
talk)
10:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
You are editwarring re Kaktovik Numerals (Unicode block). You should have started atalk way earlier. DePiep ( talk) 19:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm FormalDude. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Kaktovik Numerals (Unicode block), and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
–– FormalDude (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't need to be discussedyourself [3]. Anyway, FormalDude, could you, for once, start with specifying what you point to? So far, you have not contributed a single editsummary or tag or quotation to what you mean. So, unless you are getting specific in which statement(s) you ask me to redact, I cannot react. - DePiep ( talk) 05:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Flap consonants has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a totally new subject for me, and I noticed the title had been changed to include a curly, rather than straight, apostrophe. IIRC, there is a consensus to avoid them. Here's the redirect page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kwakwaka%27wakw&action=history
What's the story? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I have reverted your template merge [4]. In this case it is preferable to have a separate template, for multiple reasons. First of all, there is no wikilaw that forces us to do a single-transclusion merge like this. So we can judge case by case. In other situations, it may be done for conveniance. Keeping all the Category:Unicode charts (327) consistently a template, makes maintenance easier (much easier), even automatable sometimes. Also, it allows for reuse in the future (when an second article can use it). I have very good experiences with developing and maintaining a similar set with 1-transclusion. And, obviously, no harm is done this way. DePiep ( talk) 05:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The
discovery paper is out, and proposes the rename: we propose that the class of interior to Venus asteroids be referred to as 'Ayló'chaxnim asteroids
. So, should we replace "Vatira" now?
Double sharp (
talk)
15:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In case you want to hear what it sounds like, and learn how to say "de ezel is lui": [5]. Drmies ( talk) 20:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
not just British English. Serendi pod ous 09:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami Could you please stop reverting all of the changes
Hi, I see that you reverted a change I made, with a comment about Greenlandic not using base-20. Could you please help me understand your reasoning? Thanks! Dowobeha ( talk) 06:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Dowobeha: @kwami: you're having an important discussion here, and maybe we should move/condense/continue it in Talk:Eskimo–Aleut languages. I just want to make three points:
– Austronesier ( talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) 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 until the discussion has finished.
C messier ( talk) 09:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that the page is really more about religion than mythology, but I do think that "Frankish paganism" would make a better title than "Frankish religion". Srnec ( talk) 00:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kwami!
There are only three states left to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico and there are bills in each of the remaining states. This means the [State recognition of same-sex relationships in North America & Hawaii] map is about to be almost full. Same with the [Same-sex unions in Mexico] map. In the event that this happens, I was wondering if you could make a same-sex marriage map that includes all of North America, including Central America and the Caribbean. I'm wondering if the info for [State recognition of same-sex relationships in North America & Hawaii] could be combined with the info for [Homosexuality laws in Central America and the Caribbean Islands.] They all are part of North America so technically our North America map on Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas has been incomplete. I'm thinking that when the final three states in Mexico legalize, the [Same-sex unions in Mexico] maps on each of the pages like Same-sex marriage in [Mexican state name] can be replaced with the new/proposed comprehensive North America map. In states that have legalized but not codified yet (such as Chihuahua), we can also put the [Legislation for same-sex unions in Mexican states] map on those specific state pages until they codify. The new map with all of North America doesn't need to be published until the last state legalizes, but would you be willing to make such a map?
Thanks! - TenorTwelve ( talk) 01:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Kwamikagami, I noticed your edit here and agree with it, including the summary you left there. Please see my comment on the talk page. Kind regards, Anupam Talk 19:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI on the history here and here, it seems you dealt with the content situation already, but just a note that the author in question is a blocked user with some peculiar views on Indonesian language linguistics, so if there was anything that felt questionable during the merge there is no need to keep it. Best, CMD ( talk) 01:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello - you seem to have added a bunch of Chechen letters back in 2008, which we still list as being part of the Chechen alphabet, that I'm not sure are recognised as distinct members (irrespective of whether they represent an individual phoneme). Is this not a bit like listing English digraphs like "th" as part of the English alphabet? I've noticed this situation at the pages for other Caucasian langauges, too, such as Avar - though I haven't checked who added what. Theknightwho ( talk) 15:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Pronunciation of the village hamlet "Portola California" Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 02:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I think you might be interested in participating in this. It appears Quaoar already got moved to remove the number, and this is proposing it for three others. Double sharp ( talk) 21:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
ISO 639:dlc and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#ISO 639:dlc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Glades12 (
talk)
10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Our infobox gives two pronunciations, probably as different attempts to approximate the [œ] in Roentgen's name that we don't have in English. The Oxford Learner's Dictionaries give yet another alternative. Should we add it? Double sharp ( talk) 22:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Other element pronunciations I'm surprised by, looking at the infoboxes: for me technetium and lutetium end in /iːsiəm/, but the infobox has /iːʃiəm/. Prof Poliakoff agrees with me ( Tc, Lu.) Double sharp ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Another chemical borrowing where I wonder about pronunciation: kainosymmetry (just turned it into an article). I've never actually heard this word, just seen it. Double sharp ( talk) 13:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are you wrong information post my society Royal the calture ( talk) 18:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There's an unreferenced footnote claiming that Mike Brown pronounces Dysnomia in a certain way. Can you add a video link to back this up? Thanks. Nrco0e ( talk) 03:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsogo 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 until the discussion has finished.
SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 06:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
If we follow Grundy et al.'s line for dwarf planethood and demand that the body be solid, then should we say something about Tethys? Its density is so low that there's been some doubt about its solidity. This other paper (1991) is quite old, but it also raises the issue. Double sharp ( talk) 13:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
In comparison, Tethys' very low density indicates a small silicate mass fraction and possibly some non-negligible internal porosity.On the next page, some doubt is also offered for Mimas:
Mimas was much studied after Voyager flyby by Eluszkiewicz et al. (1998) and Leliwa-Kopystyński and Kossacki (2000). The latter authors inferred that the satellite has preserved some porosity although the exact amount is model dependent.I haven't yet been able to access the whole book to see if more is made of these doubts, but I found the Leliwa-Kopystyński and Kossacki paper, and it suggests that Mimas should be about 15% porous. Double sharp ( talk) 21:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Tethys is unusual among icy moons for its low bulk mean density of 0.985 g/cm3, suggesting a low rock mass fraction and/or high porosity.(From this, which later became this in 2022). Though also a 2019 model suggests that the porosity only extends to the top 66 km or so of a 533 km radius (well, still about an eighth), agreeing with this 2018 paper suggesting a porous outer shell of ice, a solid inner shell of ice, surrounding an ice-rock core. This seems a bit like what Grundy et al. suggest for the higher end of the transitional range, in which the porosity collapses out in the centre, but not all the way to the surface. OTOH Tethys certainly isn't dark!
near-surface porosity is unlikely to significantly affect [Enceladus'] bulk density. Didn't see mention of Rhea, but if Iapetus collapsed out, surely Rhea did too (it's a bit larger and denser). Double sharp ( talk) 02:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
BTW, since last year we did some updates about icy moon subsurface oceans, you might like this paper on the Uranian moons if you haven't seen it already. It concludes that Titania and Oberon could still have them today even without any tidal heating. Double sharp ( talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Here. It even has the symbols!! Double sharp ( talk) 23:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a recent paper on VLT imaging of Cybele was just posted on arXiv a few days ago ( The equilibrium shape of (65) Cybele: primordial or relic of a large impact?). Thought it'd be worth sharing with you if you're still updating the major asteroids. Nrco0e ( talk) 05:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Per a 2020 occultation it's probably smaller than 600 km (the figure from Herschel thermal data). Should we remove it from List of possible dwarf planets? Double sharp ( talk) 07:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
When editing on the Czech Wikipedia, please always fill in the edit summary. You have been repeatedly notified there. Thanks for your understanding. KPX8 ( talk) 07:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
It occurs to me that pertechnetate should probably have a pronunciation added: it has a /t/ even though technetium itself has /s/ or /ʃ/. The same thing should apply to lutetate (naturally, for lutetium), but that's a redlink and I've never actually heard that.
Has anyone said "natrium", "kalium", and "stibium" in an English context? They are in this 1998 IUPAC report as alternative names. (They're clearly not just there to explain the symbols, as they're in the same format as "aluminum" and "cesium", and the other Latin names e.g. "ferrum", "cuprum", "stannum", and "plumbum" are not there.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
For historical reasons, the element symbol W is derived from the name of the ore, wolframite, from which the metal tungsten was originally isolated. The name wolfram is still used for tungsten in some languages, but is no longer recommended for use in English.
For more than a century, the name columbium continued to be used in America and niobium in Europe. Since the priority of discovery could not be settled unambiguously, IUPAC’s CNIC adopted the name niobium in 1949 based on consideration of prevailing usage.The tungsten/wolfram thing is explained:
In 1949, IUPAC’s CNIC officially adopted wolfram as the scientific name for the element and reserved tungsten for the commercial name, in a similar fashion to iron and steel. By 1951, the chemical community erroneously thought that the name tungsten had been eliminated. A world-wide protest resulted. The CNIC decided to change back to the name tungsten pending a further review, which has never occurred.Well, I guess that explains why "wolfram" occasionally appears alongside "tungsten". Double sharp ( talk) 10:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think I may have figured out the Na and K mystery: when IUPAC was first standardising chemical nomenclature in 1949, it considered it across multiple languages (not just English): see 10.1021/ba-1953-0008.ch005. So natrium and kalium make sense to mention in this way, as they are the names in German.
But I can't find many modern languages using "stibium". Only Lithuanian, lt:Stibis. Maybe Chinese 銻 at a stretch, but that's been quite heavily changed in the borrowing. So, that's still mysterious. Double sharp ( talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
In the remaining cases where there are two names for the same element, consideration of the accepted symbols favors the names natrium, kalium, and stibium instead of sodium, potassium, and antimony.So it seems that in 1953 there was some language, with a significant presence in chemical publishing, using stibium as the normal name. I can't think of what it might be, though. Double sharp ( talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've wondered since last December how we should handle Efim Bogoljubow's patronymic in the lede. He was born in the Russian Empire, but in 1927 he moved to Germany and thereafter used the German transliteration of his surname, so it looks odd to write Bogoljubow but not Dmitrijewitsch. But Hans Kmoch who knew him claimed that he actually adopted the spelling Ewfim Dimitrijewitsch Bogoljubow. His name is spelt extremely variably in chess literature anyway according to various transliteration schemes: very reliable historian Edward Winter uses Efim Bogoljubow, which settles the article's title, but I don't see anything for his patronymic.
I also kind of wonder how pronunciation should be handled for chess figures – his name would presumably be pronounced in some kind of English approximation in his eponymous Bogoljubow Variation. And in my experience Bogo-Indian is totally assimilated, like here or here, though that's not conclusive on the full name. I found this on YouTube, at least. There's also a soundfile at his Chess.com biography, but I'm pretty much 100% sure that's by a Russian speaker.
Irrelevant PS: the very different subjects of the three latest threads I now have on your talk page amuse me! :D Double sharp ( talk) 14:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year ! Are you still an administrator from Wikipedia? CFDG123 ( talk) 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
You've been blocked as a sock puppet, so this is no longer just a matter of your school's IP being blocked fro vandalism. I don't know the reasons you were blocked and am not going to second-guess them, so I suggest that you contact the blocking or another admin directly. You should be able to email them, either from an IP or from a new account. — kwami ( talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The Japanese Chu Shogi Association (JCSA) has a table detailing the names and movements of all the pieces in Dai, Tenjiku, Dai Dai, Maka Dai Dai, and Tai here. The promotion-only pieces are on the next page.
If I understand it correctly, promotion in Tai is often not described, and one assumes that it is the same as in smaller variants (登場するが詳細不明で、先に登場する将棋での成り駒に準ずるものと思われる。) The problem that they don't seem to mention, though, is that Dai Dai and Maka Dai Dai often have the same pieces promote differently, so it is not certain which should be followed.
For pieces that first appear in Tai, it is mentioned explicitly that they do not promote there, which directly contradicts Japanese Wikipedia and agrees with the English sources. On the other hand, for pieces that only appear in Maka Dai Dai and Tai, not describing the Tai promotion seems to imply that it must be as in Maka Dai Dai (i.e. Coiled Serpent, Reclining Dragon, etc.), and so those should become "free" pieces as in Maka Dai Dai rather than not promoting at all. That said, some promotions don't match Japanese Wikipedia or the English sources: in Maka Dai Dai, we have Phoenix and Kirin promote to Golden Bird and Great Dragon as in Dai Dai, but according to JCSA they become Queen and Lion as in Chu.
I'd like to eventually go through this and check it against our diagrams to see if the moves match. If I understand correctly, a lot of them don't, though surely you can read Japanese better than me. :D But in some cases the moves listed do seem corrupt and they say so (e.g. Southern Barbarian in Dai Dai). And also, maybe it should be noted that the games are now also pretty well-known in the English rules (even if sometimes they do not accord with the historical sources), and for Dai Dai, Maka Dai Dai, and Tai, I don't think it makes that much of a difference if some of the weak step movers and range movers have changed moves when it's really the power pieces that run the show. If realistically the standard way to play them now has become the English rules, with some adaptations such as adopting the Japanese Wikipedia version of the Lion Dog as The Chess Variant Pages does, then I guess it makes sense to describe the games this way as the present step in their evolution. After all, these do not agree even with the JCSA's rules for Chu, regarding a minor point in the Lion-trading rules. Double sharp ( talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this Tai Shogi set could've answered the question. On the other hand, Showa-era rules for Chu Shogi don't completely match the known historical practice on some minutiae about promotion and Lion-trading. Double sharp ( talk) 12:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Gosh, there's a disagreement as early as Dai: the Evil Wolf is said on this page to move as Silver General. Though Japanese Wikipedia also says that's so in the SZ and SSZ: 『象戯図式』および元禄九年版『諸象戯図式』では、斜め四方と前方に動けるとしている。これは銀将と同じ動きである。I looked a little bit into Dai Dai, and the first few (e.g. Left and Right Chariots) do seem to follow some of the footnote-variants in jawiki about what the Edo-era sources read. But well, if the Japanese Wikipedia isn't following those, and neither are the English sources, then I'm not sure if the Edo-era sources should be taken as the "correct description" if that's not how anyone is actually playing the game, insofar as that ever happens. I mean, Chess is not Shatranj either. :D Double sharp ( talk) 12:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In Issue No. 25 we advertised Wa Shogi sets and stated that the game was played with drops. Current research seems to indicate that this is not the case and although the evidence for this is far from overwhelming, TSA now takes the official view that the game is indeed played without drops. A new leaflet has been prepared and the sets are now available with that new leaflet.So I guess TSA was not shy of making "official" decisions to get people to play by a single set of rules, though I don't know the Japanese scholars they worked with felt about that decision. And he also wrote
The published rules of Dai Shogi and the larger games that appeared in The Great Shogi games booklet can now regrettably only be seen as playable versions of these games and as mentioned in the historical section above it seems unlikely that hard and fast rules can be established for these variants as it would appear that they were never played at all!But perhaps the rules from Hodges' 2002 document Ten Shogi Variants were changed from that, since before 1980 they had some different promotions in Dai, too. Double sharp ( talk) 09:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
BTW, there was recently a modern Japanese attempt to revive Maka Dai Dai, but with yet another different set of rules. Not sure what became of it, since the site seems to have disappeared off the Internet. Double sharp ( talk) 09:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I want you to know that I've submitted a grant proposal to translate and proofread essential phrases from English to Twi on translatewiki.net I will be very happy if you have feedback on the application, and if you want to endorse it!. Thank you -- Robertjamal12 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Since it seems that sub-brown dwarfs can form even as low as 1 Jupiter mass, I wonder how clearing the neighbourhood will work for such systems. I don't think we want planet Pan if we look at the Saturnian system, but it seems to "clear the neighbourhood" pretty well by carving out a clear channel in the rings. :D Double sharp ( talk) 08:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely. The dynamic def happens to work for us, but I suspect that's coincidental. But the point of this mess was to guide a bureaucratic decision on naming Eris. Like you said, the IAU could've simply said the MPC gets to approve all names in the SS, or could've used their magnitude-1 criterion for a joint committee without defining anything. — kwami ( talk) 08:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason why you shouldn't put something about these on the philately page, although a fuller note should probably appear under postal history, which cancallations are part of. Sbishop ( talk) 07:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Metzger claims on his blog that "over a Hubble time it will relax to roundness again according to some estimates"; do you have any idea what source there might be for this? (I don't see him giving one.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Minor planets include dwarfs but not comets, SSSBs include comets but not dwarfs. — kwami ( talk) 10:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The term "minor planet" may still be used. But generally the term small Solar System body will be preferred.The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology agrees that they're supposedly synonyms, though their definition mentions that "minor planet" historically was more a synonym for "asteroid" and that SSSB includes comets. OTOH, the dwarfs are in the MPC catalogue, but not the comets, as you have it. Double sharp ( talk) 10:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Or better yet not define anything, give the MPC authority to name all bodies (or a joint committee to name bodies with H < +1), and let the field work itself out. Which is what's going to happen anyway.
I don't know if they came up with SSSB to conflate MP and comet, which were getting ambiguous, or if that was also in the air. — kwami ( talk) 11:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Huh, on Google Scholar there are still some people calling Vesta a DP post-Dawn. Definitely a minority, though. Can't see anyone calling Pallas a DP now. Double sharp ( talk) 12:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to include Titania and Oberon on that list at Planet, since they're the last that were actually called "secondary planets" in their discovery papers, but I can't actually find any ref for them being numbered I and II between 1787 and 1797 (when Herschel reported four more nonexistent satellites, thus messing up the numbering). Lassell vacillated between the I-II and II-IV numberings, until finally he fixed them as III-IV when he found Ariel and Umbriel; but that's way past any primary-source use of "satellite planet"/"secondary planet" for a new discovery.
That said, I wonder why Herschel said "secondary planet" when talking about Titania and Oberon, but not when talking about Mimas and Enceladus just two years later. I don't think it's likely that the language changed that fast. Given that he only says "secondary planet" once in the discovery paper for Titania and Oberon, perhaps it was just a rhetorical flourish. Or maybe it was considered common knowledge that satellites were planets, so he didn't feel the need to say it two years later. Who knows. Double sharp ( talk) 20:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about the roman numerals, as long as we ID which is which. After all, several are likely to be anachronistic even in RS's. Or we could spell them out as 'first' and 'second' if you like, though that could get a bit bulky in a table.
It could be that Herschel changed his conception of the SS between Titania/Oberon and Mimas/Enceladus. But likely he just happened to not use the words. It's not like he was making a point by calling them "planets", or that he needed to get that on the record. Still, best IMO we stick to ones that were actually called planets and remain agnostic about the rest. — kwami ( talk) 21:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You can't copy the table out of Laycock's book into the table. That would be a copyvio. Skyerise ( talk) 05:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so you're spuriously claiming you're reverting copyright violations as a way to get around 3RR. Well, I can claim to be reverting vandalism. You're the one making the changes, so it's you who needs to justify them when challenged. — kwami ( talk) 05:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Your copyvio rates 85% similarity. Not gonna fly. Skyerise ( talk) 05:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The Cambridge Planetary Science volume on Jupiter is fully available online. There's a lot of other stuff on the site it's on, too. :) Double sharp ( talk) 23:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
20:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
21:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this page on the Ewe Wikipedia. There is only a picture here and I am not sure why it is labelled as 'xexe' The page is linked to Earth on the English Wikipedia. So far as I am aware, earth is not xexe in Ewe. It is anyigba. Am I mistaken?-- Natsubee ( talk) 01:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Its density (~2.5 g/cm3) seems to be high enough to indicate that it must be mostly rocky. Double sharp ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of overlap between terrestrial and icy worlds. Some that are usually thought of as icy worlds, like Eris and Europa, are actually mostly rock and metal with only a thin veneer of ice and/or water on top.Though this is also an article that classes Europa as icy, so doesn't prove much.
Webb will observe Mars and the giant planets, minor planets like Pluto and Eris - and even the small bodies in our solar system: asteroids, comets, and Kuiper Belt Objects.That said, might not see much.
Here (1:30). Uses circle+down-arrow for Eris. Double sharp ( talk) 13:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I noticed that the Chen+Kipping source I mentioned for the planetary symbols does not use a symbol for Pluto even though Pluto is plotted in the chart. Luna is in the same situation. Though maybe that was for consistency with the other DPs and moons plotted (Eris; Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Rhea, Titan, Titania, Oberon, Triton). Double sharp ( talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I like the paper a lot, but shouldn't we de-emphasise its conclusions a bit because of its age? They're currently in a lot of pages like Rhea, Ariel, Orcus, Planetary-mass moon, etc. It models that subsurface oceans could exist today on Sedna and Orcus because of radiogenic heating, but only because it was assumed then that Orcus had a ~1600 km diameter (they cite this 2004 study). We now know that it's more like just over half that. Given that they noted that Quaoar at then-assumed ~1300 km could not support one, it seems to me that only Haumea, Makemake (not covered in this study), and Eris still are plausible candidates under this model.
The other thing is that while their model suggests the possibility of a subsurface ocean for Rhea, it seems like later measurements suggest that Rhea's interior is homogeneous, and so there would not be one. Also, the model does not account for tidal heating on bodies like Enceladus, where it would be important, and they admit that. Presumably this is why Dione, although too small for this model, may still have one today; and also why objects like Miranda and Ariel are considered today as candidates (because they may have been in resonance recently enough to still have the subsurface ocean today). Admittedly this wouldn't be much of a factor for the TNOs.
Finally the study also seems to be a bit optimistic about freezing-point depression from ammonia, according to
this later 2016 review (maller bodies like Charon or Rhea have too little radiogenic heat to maintain an ocean at present, unless very severe melting-point depression is invoked [Hussmann et al., 2006].
) Rhea we now know probably doesn't have an ocean, as I just said, and there's some evidence that Charon's
froze long ago.
Double sharp (
talk)
15:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems CNSA might
grant my wish after all: JCO and JSO would study the size, mass, and composition of Jupiter’s irregular satellites—those captured by Jupiter rather than formed in orbit, and often in distant, elliptical and even retrograde orbits—complementing science conducted by NASA’s Europa Clipper and Lucy missions, as well as the European Space Agency’s JUICE mission.
Then the concepts diverge, with JCO going to Callisto and JSO to Io and then Sol-Jupiter L1. Well, with proposals like this and the Quaoar one, it seems like no matter what flies, it'll be really cool. :D
Double sharp (
talk)
19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Template:Aleph and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Template:Aleph until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
08:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Skyerise (
talk)
21:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
That includes 3RR notices when there are not 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. That's intentional bullying and harassment. If you can't count three reverts, you are misusing the warning. Skyerise ( talk) 04:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
From a
2019 paper: The new solution likewise confirms that, despite Titan's considerable excess flattening, its interior has relaxed to a state compatible with hydrostatic equilibrium with a moment of inertia factor close to 0.341, though the presence of such significant non-hydrostatic topography is a reminder that hydrostatic equilibrium is not guaranteed, precluding a definitive determination of the moment of inertia.
So, shape is consistent with HE, but it depends on the internal structure. More or less like Callisto. (Which raises the distinct possibility that under the geophysical definition read strictly, Ganymede could end up standing in splendid isolation as the only actual satellite planet. But obviously that's not the intended reading.)
Double sharp (
talk)
16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you mentioned that Proxima b and c are probably its "giants", and I ran the numbers and found that indeed you could have something orbiting Proxima that would clear its orbit but still not be big enough to be round:
Well, maybe we could do a similar take on the ring-moon systems of our neighbours. Well, Jupiter's "inner planets" are clearly the Amalthea group, with "asteroid belts" (rings) between them. Further out are its four "giant planets": the Galilean moons. Then it has an "Oort cloud" of irregular satellites. (Which is indeed pretty much a spherical cloud that doesn't care about being in the plane of the system at all!) Similar takes for Saturn and Uranus: we even have "Kirkwood gaps" in Saturn's rings, caused by Mimas as "Saturn's rather diminutive Jupiter". Neptune clearly stands as a warning to stars trying to capture rogue giant planets. :D
(Which means that shepherd moons have "cleared the neighbourhood", and would be planets if one thought of Jupiter and Saturn as sub-brown dwarfs. Which is a bit silly, but probably just goes to illustrate that the IAU definition really has two notions fighting each other, roundness and orbital dominance, and that the fact that one is subsumed in the other for our Solar System is only a coincidence. Not to mention that this suggests that an extrasolar Janus and Epimetheus, or extrasolar trojan planets, might not be far-fetched at all!) Double sharp ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this suggests that we should actually see subsatellites of irregular satellites. Further in it wouldn't work, for reasons similar to why Mercury and Venus don't have moons. And indeed it seems likely that Saturn's Kiviuq is at least a contact binary. Double sharp ( talk) 00:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Marius' suggestion of "the Mercury of Jupiter" (Io), "the Venus of Jupiter" (Europa), "the Jupiter of Jupiter" (Ganymede), and "the Saturn of Jupiter" (Callisto) seems to accord with the "Jovian frost line" pretty well. :D
BTW, I found a 1916 English translation of Marius' 1614 Mundus Jovialis. Double sharp ( talk) 22:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Kwamikagami, Could you please look into the changes you made on this symbol? Its size and overall design is not fitting with the male counterpart anymore which makes this table look quite uneven. I don’t have the required permissions, so please take action :) Thanks and BR -- Affegass ( talk) 10:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Saltillocap has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk
09:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cinadon 36 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I would like to understand why you undid the modification I made to Chile on the same-sex marriage list. As I see you not only undid it but you proceeded to do the exact same change afterwards putting your name instead of yours.
Care to explain me why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1239 ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Here. So I guess now even popular-facing articles aren't sticking to the 5-dwarfs line. Double sharp ( talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Kwamigami. I've noticed your replacement of zodiac signs on German Wikipedia [1].
Now, I'm not against colored zodiac signs in general, but this version just doesn't make sense. I can see you've obviously used a coloring scheme based on planetary rulers for each sign from *ASTROLOGY*, but pretty much no astrologist on earth uses or recognizes Ophiuchus as an actual *ZODIAC SIGN* instead of just a constellation. The only people who do are *ASTRONOMERS*, and they definitely don't recognize planetary rulership. Moreover, even the color scheme based on planetary ruiers that you've picked is the ruler system from Classical Antiquity when only 7 planets were known, while ever since the 19th century, the vast majority of astrologers use Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto as new rulers for Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio ever since their respective discoveries.
On top of it all, it's highly uncommon in astrology to color signs based on their ruler. If anything, they're usually colored by which element they belong to (red for Fire, green for Earth, yellow for Air, and blue for Water). -- 2003:EF:1702:2734:15BC:BB02:AFCE:CFCE ( talk) 11:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So the TfD for {{
saltillocap}}
got closed as being no consensus, but I think a good approach for this (as well as others) might be to add a parameter caps=
to {{
saltillo}}
that displays the majescule with a non-blank value so that we can essentially merge them. I think you'd be less likely to run into issues of having these kinds of character entry templates going to TfD for being unused if they were naturally twice as likely to be used in any given circumstance. It's especially likely to help where the caps form is a modern back formation, so is much less likely to be used outside of limited presentation circumstances. Just a thought.
Van
Isaac, MPLL
cont
WpWS
20:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi kwami, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to this article in the past (and looked at it when we had a conflict with another user...) and given your expertise in linguistics, I thought you could be interested in reviewing it. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 ( talk) 14:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
So exactly how does one pronounce implosives? I'm not quite getting a lot out of our article on them. Okay, I'm supposed to pull my glottis downward: how do I do that and how do I know I've done it right?
(Asking because Vietnamese is on my language wishlist. But when listening to their b and đ I can't quite hear what I'm supposed to be doing different. It would be nice to know how to do it properly. :D) Double sharp ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like you to have a look at this edit and others like it. Drmies ( talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami, I noticed that in your file File:Trans-New_Guinea_languages_(Usher_2018).svg, specifically in the section for Timor-Alor-Pantar languages, the island of Leti to the east of Timor is being shaded green (for Trans-New Guinea families) while the island of Kisar (nearby, also to the east of Timor) is being shaded yellow for being Austronesian. However, the information I'm seeing is that on Leti, the Austronesian Leti language is spoken on Leti while the Trans-New Guinean Oirata language is being spoken on Kisar. I wonder if this is a mistake in the graph and, if so, whether you'd be open to changing it. - Erictxcao ( talk) 09:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho ( talk) 05:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It is a complex sentence, but from my perspective it's missing that word. Otherwise it reads odd, from an English perspective. "or collectively his followers in the 15th century" Note that this clause is incomplete and doesn't make sense. Within the context it can be understood though still it reads poorly. I cannot see a justification to remove the "by" and will revert it, though I am curious to hear your thinking. Jhonevans ( talk) 16:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
→Upon re-reading I see that you were right. My apologies. Jhonevans ( talk) 16:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
![]()
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. ( t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
In a recent edit to Kinyarwanda, you removed the [ɡ] from the phonetic representation of the orthographic sequence rw, calling it a “stupid claim” that “makes no sense.”
But rw is indeed generally realized as a [ɾɡw] sequence in Rwandan and this claim is made by all the classic works of Rwandan grammar. To give only a few examples, please consult Coupez, Abrégé de grammaire rwanda, vol. 1, pp. 32, 34, Bizimana et al., Imiteêrere y’îkinyarwaanda, vol. 1, pp. 23, 25 and Shimamungu, Le kinyarwanda : initiation à une langue bantu, p. 17. The sequence is also audible 20 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJL6yqpdQw&t=0m20s. I could cite many more sources.
I do note that the sequence you edited had oblique strokes around it, incorrectly indicating that it was phonemic. It is true that there should be no /g/ in the phonemic representation, but the context made clear that this was supposed to be a phonetic representation, so I changed it to use square brackets accordingly. It appears to me that you were asserting that there should be no [ɡ] in the phonetic representation.
As far as I can see, you cited no sources for your edit. Please share any sources that have led you to this conclusion. Do be aware that labialization of a non-dorsal consonant in Rwandan generally entails the insertion of a velar consonant with the same sonority and manner of articulation as the consonant being labialized.
Ciringacenjunga ( talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Kwamikagami! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
and now I'm embarrassed because he points out you started it. It's just unacceptable to call what is a content dispute vandalism. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This may be completely random, but is there a particular system that you use to make a colored map of the United States, as in File:Abortion availability in the US by fetal gestational age.svg. ? I would like to be able to do that for other projects both on and off Wikipedia, and I was just curious. TNstingray ( talk) 01:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Per User talk:Double sharp/Archive 19#Salacia – wait, so is DM on board with this new "Latin" Salacia? Double sharp ( talk) 09:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Your recent edit at United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Change in status by administering state seems to have a created an issue with the table at row - New Caledonia. Can you fix this? Dhruv edits ( talk) 06:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you add information about the new names for Arrokoth's lobes that were mentioned in McKinnon et al.'s recently-published Geophysical Research Letter? I figured I'd ask you since you're knowledgeable when it comes to name origins and meanings. As far I'm aware of, there hasn't been any formal announcement of the new lobe names "Weeyo" and "Wenu", let alone the introduction of "lobus" as the formal term for lobe features. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In the graph World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg, China is set to blue which is very misleading. The author set it to blue as he/she thought China had legal guardianship law. But this law was made for any two consenting adults. It is not for same-sex couples benefits at all! Actually, the Chinese government is trying to weaken its usage by same-sex couples. Such laws can be found in many other countries. Since it's not made for same-sex relationship protection or recognition purpose, as a Chinese citizen, I strongly suggest that we change China from Limited domestic legal recognition to Same-sex unions not legally recognized. e.g. Almost all the countries have laws allowing a person to nominate his/her heir by will, which can be taken advantaged by same-sex couples. Does this mean that all countries have limited domestic legal recognition? The answer is obviously No unless this country has special laws for inheritance between same-sex couples. If we set China to blue, why don't we do so to many other grey countries which also have similar legal guardianship laws between two consenting adults? Thank you very much! Hueofwind ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input on this topic to resolve some long disputed issues about modern Taino movements. /info/en/?search=Talk:Taíno#Request_for_Comment_on_Modern_Taino_Identity Poketama ( talk) 01:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw in the article Hlubi language you originally called Hlubi/amaHlubi a dialect of Xhosa, and I'm not a Xhosa speaker but it seems to contradict some stuff online including the Tribal commission document, now used as a source in the article, that categorizes Hlubi as "similar to amaSwazi" (and others online just call it a dialect of Swazi). I don't know if it can be considered closer to Swazi or Xhosa, but Ethnologue ( archived copy) does not classify Swazi as a dialect of Xhosa or vice-versa, and they seem to classify Hlubi as a dialect of Swazi/Swati ( archived copy). I'm going to make the change on the page for now since I have the RS, but if you have a source, please bring it. SamuelRiv ( talk) 13:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
What is your opinion on adding Braille to articles? I noticed it done on the Braille article, and figured it would be a good idea to add it to other relevant articles as well, but a blind admin has deleted both my added Braille and the Braille that was already on Wikipedia. As I see it, this is no different from adding any other relevant script, and making an exception for Braille would need consensus, but my opponent sees Braille as a special case and feels that including Braille would need consensus. There's a discussion on my talk page. Libhye ( talk) 06:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
[2] Per WP:TPG please don't refactor talk page discussions as you did here. This gives the false impression of the discussion as it unfolds. W C M email 07:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
===Discussion===
as kwami did in
this edit is one of the most common resectioning edits and is seen often in many discussions across Wikipedia, and is both fully within the recommendations of the guideline, and is supported by broad community support and a very long history of such usage.
Mathglot (
talk)
20:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Hi, kwami,
In this comment of yours at Template talk:Infobox language, you mentioned the Hadza. That gave me a deja-vu feeling. By sheer happenstance when looking for something entirely different, I ran into some notes I had taken for a forthcoming template for parsing citations, and the citation example I had in my notes happens to be Groyecka et al., 2019 in which the Hadza were included as subjects in some research on perception. My next question, though, was where the heck did I get that reference? Turns out, it was from an article I created last year, called Gendered associations of pink and blue. In the § Academic research section, if you follow note 41, you'll see it links to the source " Similarities in Color Preferences Between Women and Men: The Case of Hadza, the Hunter-Gatherers From Tanzania", and was included in the article in an attempt to broaden the scope beyond just Western subjects. So, nothing to do with language at all, nor even Hadza culture per se, although related to one minor aspect of it.
In any case, "deja vu" mystery solved, and you'll also find a Hadza image which is used only in the pink & blue article, and might make a good addition to one of the Hadza articles, and there are plenty more Hadza images available. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi kwami,
I was wondering why you created c:File:Trans woman power symbol.svg, and c:File:Trans woman power symbol (purple).svg. Aside from the default size being 15x15 pixels, and the second file being coloured in purple, it seems otherwise identical to c:File:A Transfeminist-Symbol black-and-white.svg. I'm particularly concerned that this breaks the attribution of the file, as the original file was the creation of User:Adarkhairedone, however the two files that you have created say that you're the original author and have uploaded it as your own work. This is particularly important, as the original file is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 which requires attribution to the original author, in this case Adarkhairedone, which is not done on either file.
Could you shed some light on this please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and if you could also address why you've been removing usage of the original file, and replacing it with your recreations please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kwamikagami,
I'm gonna start, what I have to say, of by first stating that I'm of the opinion that anybody who "believes" in UFO's is either crazy or dumb. Having said that I think you were wrong to delete the above article. Whatever opinion you or I hold, UFO's are part of human culture and there has been research by "academia" (however you want to define that) into it. WP attempts to collect "the sum of all human knowledge" (words by Jimmy Wales) and this topic should be in WP.
Regards,
Dutchy45 (
talk)
10:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
You are editwarring re Kaktovik Numerals (Unicode block). You should have started atalk way earlier. DePiep ( talk) 19:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm FormalDude. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Kaktovik Numerals (Unicode block), and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
–– FormalDude (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't need to be discussedyourself [3]. Anyway, FormalDude, could you, for once, start with specifying what you point to? So far, you have not contributed a single editsummary or tag or quotation to what you mean. So, unless you are getting specific in which statement(s) you ask me to redact, I cannot react. - DePiep ( talk) 05:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Flap consonants has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a totally new subject for me, and I noticed the title had been changed to include a curly, rather than straight, apostrophe. IIRC, there is a consensus to avoid them. Here's the redirect page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kwakwaka%27wakw&action=history
What's the story? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I have reverted your template merge [4]. In this case it is preferable to have a separate template, for multiple reasons. First of all, there is no wikilaw that forces us to do a single-transclusion merge like this. So we can judge case by case. In other situations, it may be done for conveniance. Keeping all the Category:Unicode charts (327) consistently a template, makes maintenance easier (much easier), even automatable sometimes. Also, it allows for reuse in the future (when an second article can use it). I have very good experiences with developing and maintaining a similar set with 1-transclusion. And, obviously, no harm is done this way. DePiep ( talk) 05:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The
discovery paper is out, and proposes the rename: we propose that the class of interior to Venus asteroids be referred to as 'Ayló'chaxnim asteroids
. So, should we replace "Vatira" now?
Double sharp (
talk)
15:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In case you want to hear what it sounds like, and learn how to say "de ezel is lui": [5]. Drmies ( talk) 20:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
not just British English. Serendi pod ous 09:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami Could you please stop reverting all of the changes
Hi, I see that you reverted a change I made, with a comment about Greenlandic not using base-20. Could you please help me understand your reasoning? Thanks! Dowobeha ( talk) 06:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Dowobeha: @kwami: you're having an important discussion here, and maybe we should move/condense/continue it in Talk:Eskimo–Aleut languages. I just want to make three points:
– Austronesier ( talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) 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 until the discussion has finished.
C messier ( talk) 09:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that the page is really more about religion than mythology, but I do think that "Frankish paganism" would make a better title than "Frankish religion". Srnec ( talk) 00:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kwami!
There are only three states left to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico and there are bills in each of the remaining states. This means the [State recognition of same-sex relationships in North America & Hawaii] map is about to be almost full. Same with the [Same-sex unions in Mexico] map. In the event that this happens, I was wondering if you could make a same-sex marriage map that includes all of North America, including Central America and the Caribbean. I'm wondering if the info for [State recognition of same-sex relationships in North America & Hawaii] could be combined with the info for [Homosexuality laws in Central America and the Caribbean Islands.] They all are part of North America so technically our North America map on Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas has been incomplete. I'm thinking that when the final three states in Mexico legalize, the [Same-sex unions in Mexico] maps on each of the pages like Same-sex marriage in [Mexican state name] can be replaced with the new/proposed comprehensive North America map. In states that have legalized but not codified yet (such as Chihuahua), we can also put the [Legislation for same-sex unions in Mexican states] map on those specific state pages until they codify. The new map with all of North America doesn't need to be published until the last state legalizes, but would you be willing to make such a map?
Thanks! - TenorTwelve ( talk) 01:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Kwamikagami, I noticed your edit here and agree with it, including the summary you left there. Please see my comment on the talk page. Kind regards, Anupam Talk 19:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI on the history here and here, it seems you dealt with the content situation already, but just a note that the author in question is a blocked user with some peculiar views on Indonesian language linguistics, so if there was anything that felt questionable during the merge there is no need to keep it. Best, CMD ( talk) 01:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello - you seem to have added a bunch of Chechen letters back in 2008, which we still list as being part of the Chechen alphabet, that I'm not sure are recognised as distinct members (irrespective of whether they represent an individual phoneme). Is this not a bit like listing English digraphs like "th" as part of the English alphabet? I've noticed this situation at the pages for other Caucasian langauges, too, such as Avar - though I haven't checked who added what. Theknightwho ( talk) 15:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Pronunciation of the village hamlet "Portola California" Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 02:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I think you might be interested in participating in this. It appears Quaoar already got moved to remove the number, and this is proposing it for three others. Double sharp ( talk) 21:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
ISO 639:dlc and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#ISO 639:dlc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Glades12 (
talk)
10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Our infobox gives two pronunciations, probably as different attempts to approximate the [œ] in Roentgen's name that we don't have in English. The Oxford Learner's Dictionaries give yet another alternative. Should we add it? Double sharp ( talk) 22:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Other element pronunciations I'm surprised by, looking at the infoboxes: for me technetium and lutetium end in /iːsiəm/, but the infobox has /iːʃiəm/. Prof Poliakoff agrees with me ( Tc, Lu.) Double sharp ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Another chemical borrowing where I wonder about pronunciation: kainosymmetry (just turned it into an article). I've never actually heard this word, just seen it. Double sharp ( talk) 13:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are you wrong information post my society Royal the calture ( talk) 18:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There's an unreferenced footnote claiming that Mike Brown pronounces Dysnomia in a certain way. Can you add a video link to back this up? Thanks. Nrco0e ( talk) 03:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsogo 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 until the discussion has finished.
SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 06:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
If we follow Grundy et al.'s line for dwarf planethood and demand that the body be solid, then should we say something about Tethys? Its density is so low that there's been some doubt about its solidity. This other paper (1991) is quite old, but it also raises the issue. Double sharp ( talk) 13:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
In comparison, Tethys' very low density indicates a small silicate mass fraction and possibly some non-negligible internal porosity.On the next page, some doubt is also offered for Mimas:
Mimas was much studied after Voyager flyby by Eluszkiewicz et al. (1998) and Leliwa-Kopystyński and Kossacki (2000). The latter authors inferred that the satellite has preserved some porosity although the exact amount is model dependent.I haven't yet been able to access the whole book to see if more is made of these doubts, but I found the Leliwa-Kopystyński and Kossacki paper, and it suggests that Mimas should be about 15% porous. Double sharp ( talk) 21:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Tethys is unusual among icy moons for its low bulk mean density of 0.985 g/cm3, suggesting a low rock mass fraction and/or high porosity.(From this, which later became this in 2022). Though also a 2019 model suggests that the porosity only extends to the top 66 km or so of a 533 km radius (well, still about an eighth), agreeing with this 2018 paper suggesting a porous outer shell of ice, a solid inner shell of ice, surrounding an ice-rock core. This seems a bit like what Grundy et al. suggest for the higher end of the transitional range, in which the porosity collapses out in the centre, but not all the way to the surface. OTOH Tethys certainly isn't dark!
near-surface porosity is unlikely to significantly affect [Enceladus'] bulk density. Didn't see mention of Rhea, but if Iapetus collapsed out, surely Rhea did too (it's a bit larger and denser). Double sharp ( talk) 02:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
BTW, since last year we did some updates about icy moon subsurface oceans, you might like this paper on the Uranian moons if you haven't seen it already. It concludes that Titania and Oberon could still have them today even without any tidal heating. Double sharp ( talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Here. It even has the symbols!! Double sharp ( talk) 23:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a recent paper on VLT imaging of Cybele was just posted on arXiv a few days ago ( The equilibrium shape of (65) Cybele: primordial or relic of a large impact?). Thought it'd be worth sharing with you if you're still updating the major asteroids. Nrco0e ( talk) 05:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Per a 2020 occultation it's probably smaller than 600 km (the figure from Herschel thermal data). Should we remove it from List of possible dwarf planets? Double sharp ( talk) 07:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
When editing on the Czech Wikipedia, please always fill in the edit summary. You have been repeatedly notified there. Thanks for your understanding. KPX8 ( talk) 07:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
It occurs to me that pertechnetate should probably have a pronunciation added: it has a /t/ even though technetium itself has /s/ or /ʃ/. The same thing should apply to lutetate (naturally, for lutetium), but that's a redlink and I've never actually heard that.
Has anyone said "natrium", "kalium", and "stibium" in an English context? They are in this 1998 IUPAC report as alternative names. (They're clearly not just there to explain the symbols, as they're in the same format as "aluminum" and "cesium", and the other Latin names e.g. "ferrum", "cuprum", "stannum", and "plumbum" are not there.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
For historical reasons, the element symbol W is derived from the name of the ore, wolframite, from which the metal tungsten was originally isolated. The name wolfram is still used for tungsten in some languages, but is no longer recommended for use in English.
For more than a century, the name columbium continued to be used in America and niobium in Europe. Since the priority of discovery could not be settled unambiguously, IUPAC’s CNIC adopted the name niobium in 1949 based on consideration of prevailing usage.The tungsten/wolfram thing is explained:
In 1949, IUPAC’s CNIC officially adopted wolfram as the scientific name for the element and reserved tungsten for the commercial name, in a similar fashion to iron and steel. By 1951, the chemical community erroneously thought that the name tungsten had been eliminated. A world-wide protest resulted. The CNIC decided to change back to the name tungsten pending a further review, which has never occurred.Well, I guess that explains why "wolfram" occasionally appears alongside "tungsten". Double sharp ( talk) 10:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think I may have figured out the Na and K mystery: when IUPAC was first standardising chemical nomenclature in 1949, it considered it across multiple languages (not just English): see 10.1021/ba-1953-0008.ch005. So natrium and kalium make sense to mention in this way, as they are the names in German.
But I can't find many modern languages using "stibium". Only Lithuanian, lt:Stibis. Maybe Chinese 銻 at a stretch, but that's been quite heavily changed in the borrowing. So, that's still mysterious. Double sharp ( talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
In the remaining cases where there are two names for the same element, consideration of the accepted symbols favors the names natrium, kalium, and stibium instead of sodium, potassium, and antimony.So it seems that in 1953 there was some language, with a significant presence in chemical publishing, using stibium as the normal name. I can't think of what it might be, though. Double sharp ( talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've wondered since last December how we should handle Efim Bogoljubow's patronymic in the lede. He was born in the Russian Empire, but in 1927 he moved to Germany and thereafter used the German transliteration of his surname, so it looks odd to write Bogoljubow but not Dmitrijewitsch. But Hans Kmoch who knew him claimed that he actually adopted the spelling Ewfim Dimitrijewitsch Bogoljubow. His name is spelt extremely variably in chess literature anyway according to various transliteration schemes: very reliable historian Edward Winter uses Efim Bogoljubow, which settles the article's title, but I don't see anything for his patronymic.
I also kind of wonder how pronunciation should be handled for chess figures – his name would presumably be pronounced in some kind of English approximation in his eponymous Bogoljubow Variation. And in my experience Bogo-Indian is totally assimilated, like here or here, though that's not conclusive on the full name. I found this on YouTube, at least. There's also a soundfile at his Chess.com biography, but I'm pretty much 100% sure that's by a Russian speaker.
Irrelevant PS: the very different subjects of the three latest threads I now have on your talk page amuse me! :D Double sharp ( talk) 14:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)