This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
I'm concerned about the number of multi-word phrases that have been placed in this Category -- particularly in subcategories such as Category:1950s neologisms. Many of them are catchphrases from popular culture, advertsing slogans, quotes from movies, passages from literature, etc.
Examples: Charlie Brown, you blockhead; Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids; The name's Bond... James Bond; Have you no sense of decency; Nadir of American race relations; Do not go gentle into that good night; What's good for General Motors is good for the country.
Those were just a small sample. I just don't see how these phrases can *properly* be considered neologisms -- they are merely phrases (consisting of commonly-used words) that happen to have become popular during a certain period of time.
Frankly, it is incomrehensible that so many of these phrases have been added into Categories intended for neologisms. I am happy to do my share of the work removing these improperly categorized articles, but I can't take on the whole job myself. Can I count on folks here to help out in a big way? Regards, Anomalous+0 ( talk) 06:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for Joshua Katz (classicist). Does he appear to meet notability for his academic work? Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 16:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, please upvote for my suggestion to access the John Benjamins e-Platform in the Wikipedia Library: the link is here, search for "John Benjamins" and click the "Upvote"-button. The site hosts Diachronica, Journal of Historical Linguistics, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area and loads of other journals relevant for this project. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Your comments at either discussion at Talk:When the going gets tough, the tough get going would be appreciated. I'd be inclined to delete the article per WP:NOTDICT. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Would some of the members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Miroglyph? It's newly created, but didn't get reviewed by AfC. I've done some minor MOS cleanup, but it's still contain way to many Wikilinks to pages that don't really need to be linked. There's also a question about whether it meets WP:NOTNEO, but that would be better assessed perhaps by users more familiar with articles about neologisms. The article appears to have been created a part of a university course ( Wikipedia:GLAM/UNIPD/Digital_History). The course appears to be for an Italian University and some of the content in the article might be translated from other Wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor that's been edit warring with me on
Spanish language over the inclusion of a third IPA transcription with ⟨ʝ⟩ (so
[kasteˈʝano] alongside
[kasteˈʎano]) is continuously refusing to engage with me on
Help talk:IPA/Spanish#Yeísmo. Instead, he's writing blatantly false edit summaries such as Undid revision 1095685100 by Sol505000 (talk) rv per Help:IPA/Spanish: For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. In this instance, the two most common standard forms are helpful. See also article text: In most dialects it (/ʎ/) has been merged with /ʝ/ in the merger called yeísmo
when it is clear that Castellano is not one of "terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo". Not only that, the guide explicitly says that ⟨ʝ⟩ is to be used INSTEAD of ⟨ʎ⟩ in such cases. Do we really need to retranscribe hundreds if not thousands of words to make the variant with [ʝ] explicit? Your input would be appreciated.
Sol505000 (
talk) 11:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Around two weeks ago, I asked a question at the Teahouse regarding whether there is any "official Wikipedia policy" regarding the selection of comparison texts or sample texts for different languages (e.g. Lord's Prayer, Article 1 of the UDHR, The North Wind and the Sun etc.). I was redirected to WikiProject Languages where I asked the same question again on the talk page. Since it's been, well, a bit over two weeks and I haven't got any response, I thought I'd ask here.
The question is this: on the Wikipedia articles on different languages, there are often example texts or language comparison texts that are used to give a brief idea of the character of the language and to compare it with English. However, as far as I can tell, the selection of these texts is not consistent: for example, Latin uses a sample of De Bello Gallico, Esperanto uses a sample text about dragons in China and Article 1 of the UDHR, French language also uses Article 1 of the UDHR, and so on. Is there any specific Wikipedia policy regarding what text to use as a sample text/comparison text, or is it down to editor judgement? If there is an official Wikipedia policy regarding this, could you please provide a link to the corresponding page?
Thanks — MeasureWell ( talk) 09:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
All comments on a possibly controversial moving proposal would be highly appreciated here. Borsoka ( talk) 03:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Akerbeltz has been edit warring with me over the inclusion of the primary stress mark on Help:IPA/Basque and the corresponding IPA transcriptions of Basque on Wikipedia. Per MOS:PRON (section Other languages), the two should agree with each other. I invite you to join the discussion on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Sol505000 ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Now taken to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Sol505000 ( talk) 21:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
New Template:Wiktionarylang may be used to add a small box flush right with a link to a term in a foreign language wiktionary. If you're familiar with {{ Wikisourcelang}}, the operation of the new template is similar, and uses the same four positional parameters, and adds one more to allow you to specify 'section' (as in this example), 'paragraph', and so on instead of 'article'. Mathglot ( talk) 02:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I've refactored this page a bit and added discussion of the form of vṛddhi (proto-vṛddhi) present in Proto-Indo-European and its relation to Sanskrit Vṛddhi. Does anyone have any thoughts on the third section? I moved some content to the origin section, but I wasn't sure what do do with the rest. Jajaperson ( talk) 09:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Planet#Mythology and naming? The article's currently undergoing FAR, and because of a remark about the citations, I just noticed that the listed etymologies for the Arabic names of the planets seem to disagree with Wiktionary, and there's a bewildering amount of different opinions from sources. I'd like to know what the current scholarly consensus is (assuming there even is one). Double sharp ( talk) 15:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I just realized we had an article on " between you and I" via the Reference desk and was surprised to find phrases such as "linguists [who] accept the grammaticality" and "prescriptive linguists". The article seems to engage in undue both-sidesism and conflate grammaticality (over which there is no debate) and acceptability, instead of discussing scholarly description and lay commentary separately. I might look into it when I have time but I'm leaving a note here so someone already familiar with the topic can tackle it. Nardog ( talk) 05:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback regarding parameter |ethnicity=
in
Template:Infobox language would be appreciated. Please see
this discussion. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a recent proposal to merge causative alternation and labile verb articles.
Not being a linguist, I had asked a question on the causative alternation talk page: how it this different than ergativity? Editor @ AjaxSmack: considered the question, and proposed merging.
I figure that since few people seem to be minding those pages, it might make sense to post a note here.
Also: the labile verb article is not claimed by Wikiproject Linguistics, which looks like an oversight. I will add it. ( Ergative verb redirects to labile verb, by the way.) -- M.boli ( talk) 13:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly new here and noticed that many different styles seem to be used across Wikipedia for glosses. I enjoy consistency.
In 2015, MOS:SINGLE for glosses was added per discussions here and here. I find this rule lessens readability and without precedence elsewhere online or offline; I'm curious if others share the readability concern.
Here are the four options as I see it:
option | appearance | precedence | downside |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 'single straight quotes' | MOS:SINGLE | apostrophe overloading, readability (?) |
2 | "double straight quotes" | ? | potential double quote overloading (?) |
3 | ‘single curly quotes’ | oed.com, widely used in print | opposes MOS:CQ, harder to type |
4 | “double straight quotes” | Wiktionary, MW online, LSJ online | opposes MOS:CQ, harder to type |
Two remarks:
{{
lang}}
, then type-ability may be less of downside; see also
Quotation marks in English#Typing_quotation_marks_on_a_computer_keyboard.Do you share the readability concern? 'wɪnd ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
"we use single quotes because it's normal linguistics markup for glosses, and that we use straight ones for this purpose (and all other quote-marks purposes) because of MOS:CURLY, but the user is just not getting it". Yes, I hear this and agree with all of this as I believe I told you earlier: (a) the precedence in print is to use single curly quotes and (b) MOS:CQ is Wikipedia convention. The core point is that I find combining these rule leads to readability concerns and has no precedent elsewhere, and I wondered if others share this view? Also, I'd like to kindly ask you to assume good faith. I'm new to Wikipedia, and this kind of communication makes me feel uncomfortable. I do very much want to understand my mistakes and I believe I'm learning and adapting. 'wɪnd ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello
I just created the PHOIBLE article.
Feel free to review it and make changes and additions, as my English and knowledge of wp.en editing practices isn't perfect.
I also added it in the Lexical databases section of the Template:Cross-Linguistic Linked Data.
Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The name for
ISO 639-3 code
arc changed in 2007. This should be reflected in the link of {{
lang-arc}}
. I started a discussion at
Template talk:lang-arc#Change language link to Imperial Aramaic respectively
Module talk:Lang/data#Template-protected edit request on 25 September 2022. I‘d be glad for your input.
S.K. (
talk) 21:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
In June, I have substantially expanded and also updated the article about Slovene phonology and thus the help page is not in accordance with the phonology article and has to be updated as well. I have posted my thoughts on the talk page, but so far no one has commented. If you are interested, please visit the talk page and post your comment there. (I was directed here from the help desk) Garygo golob ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Classical compound#Requested move 25 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that we don't have consistency among our templates about translation, e.g.:
lang-xx
templates, for example {{
lang-fa}}
renders as:
{{
literal translation}}
renders as:
{{
translation}}
renders as:
Because of these different layouts' lack of consistency, using them in the same page makes it very confusing. We should set a norm, with an eye to the
Manual of Style/Text formatting.
IMHO the first layout is preferable, being already used by all lang-xx
templates, but we must decide it together, so, in the end...
What's the preferable layout?
Let me know, thanks. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 10:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
literal translation}}
and {{
translation}}
templates into this discussion. Please don't do that; it just makes reading the wikitext that much more difficult. Because it does make reading more difficult, I have removed the template code from your post and replaced it with simpler examples.{{lang|fa|[[wikt:سرای#Persian|سرای]]}} {{transl|fa|sarāy}} 'palace'.
can be simplified:
{{lang-fa|[[wikt:سرای#Persian|سرای]]|sarāy|palace|label=none}}
→
سرای, sarāy, 'palace'The Italian Treccani dictionary gives two derivations: one via Turkish: seray or saray (with the variants seraya or saraya), which comes from Persian: سرای, romanized: sarāy, lit. 'palace' or, per derivation, the enclosed court for the wives and concubines of the harem of a house or palace (see § Harem); the other — in the sense of enclosure — from Late/ Medieval Latin: serraculum, derived from Classical Latin serare, lit. 'to close', which comes from sera, lit. 'door-bar'
stuff like "transl." and "lit."are not needed for proper rendering and pronunciation. Browsers and screen readers use the underlying html for that. No doubt, the "transl." and "lit." (because they are marked up with
<abbr>...</abbr>
tags) are read by screen readers as 'translation' and 'literal translation' respectively.{{code|{{literal translation|palace}}}}
<abbr style="font-size:85%" title="literal translation">lit.</abbr><span style="white-space: nowrap;"> </span><span class="gloss-quot">'</span><span class="gloss-text">palace</span><span class="gloss-quot">'</span>
{{
literal translation}}
and {{
translation}}
? Surely we can make {{translation}}
do the work of {{literal translation}}
; it already has |literal=
so:
{{literal translation|palace}}
→
lit. 'palace'{{translation|palace|literal=yes}}
→
lit. transl. palace@
Uanfala and
Trappist the monk: So what about following the lang-xx
standard, replacing
lit. 'word' with
lit. 'word'?
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
PS. Note that the lang-xx
standard doesn't make difference between translation and literal translation.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 14:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The topic regularly comes back, so I started a discussion here, to assess Ethnologue in WP:RSP. Feedback welcome! A455bcd9 ( talk) 07:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback on "types" of Communication would be helpful at Talk:Communication/Archive 1#Types of communication. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether the article Vowel breaking is at the right location/about the scope of the article at Talk:Vowel breaking#Page at right location?.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted a recent edit [1]. The edit claimed that Noakhailla language is not listed in Glottolog and therefore it should not be listed in Bengali-Assamese languages. It seems to me that this issue is better addressed in Noakhailla language first. Also that Dhakaiyya Kutti is a dialect of Bengali language. Since Dhaka Bengali is yet another standard of the Bengali language, I wonder how this can be best represented. Could some linguists please provide some inputs here. Thanks. Chaipau ( talk) 16:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you just walk in and join or there are requirements OSC221 ( talk) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of the pages listed in Category:Women Linguists are not listed in Category:Linguists. Also some of the Linguists are women and are not listed in that category. There are 679 women linguists and only 146 linguists total! What's the quickest way to fix this? ImSirLaserOwl ( talk) 02:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The above two stub articles have been proposed for deletion following a discussion here. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 13:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I've made a series of edits at Deverbal noun cutting out unsourced content (which was almost everything) and reorganizing it as a stub. I've proposed a couple of ways forward at Talk:Deverbal noun#Merge or rewrite, and your feedback would be welcome. Mathglot ( talk) 06:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I proposed a new class for the WPLING template to group Help articles over at Template talk:WikiProject Linguistics. If I don't get any objections, I'll move forward with the changes in a few days to a week. Indigopari ( talk) 04:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze#Requested move 26 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 19:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing request for discussion concerning whether First Nations placenames can be used in the infobox on Wikipedia. Please provide your feedback here. Poketama ( talk) 02:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As the naming of anything seems a matter perhaps relevant to this project, members may be interested in an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars named for their duration. There is also perhaps a missing article to be written on the subject of Naming of wars or Names of wars. Pam D 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a project-related afd here, the input of Wikipedians familiar with the topic wold be welcome. Warrenmck ( talk) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
There's an article on the proposed Uralo-Siberian languages which needs a heavy rewrite to meet wikipedia's standards. Right now it's essentially falling flat on the guidelines for how to handle WP:FRINGE considering it's being presented as a serious theory, even including references to how it can evidence Nostratic (which I've removed). I'm not 100% certain if this needs a rewrite to discuss its current status as a fairly rejected macrofamily proposal, or if it honestly simply fails WP:N. Either way, it definitely shouldn't be presented as a seriously considered and somewhat accepted proposal considering how little evidence/acceptance it has found.
Perhaps it would make sense to have a proposed macrofamily article which weighs several of these smaller theories, rather than giving each of them their own article? This is done somewhat on the pages for language isolates like Basque when discussing proposed genetic links. Warrenmck ( talk) 20:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Bhoti is currently a disambiguation page listing various articles about languages called Bhoti. On the talk page, I've written a bit about why there should likely be one broad-concept article discussing all the "varieties" of Bhoti. If anyone with more technical expertise in sociolinguistics and/or historical linguistics could give their two cents on the thread, it would be much appreciated! — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 16:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there's value in removing pages such as Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots which contain wonderful statements like
(emphasis added)
There's a huge amount of bad linguistics on a lot of these articles which run directly counter to the academic consensus, and many of these treat fringe theories well outside the norm of academic consensus as a given in how they are written. I would like to spend some time doing a substantial overhaul of these articles, including AfDing some like above (rejected macrofamilies should, frankly, not have their own articles dedicated to reconstructed roots in my opinion, but I'd like to see other input), but I think I'm running up against an issue with the sheer volume that has been written by proponents of these theories creating a false narrative that these are controversial, rather than widely rejected (for example, I was recently accused of attempting to "push an agenda" for calling Nostratic a fringe theory).
As I mentioned in my post a couple of days ago, I think the solution here is to, with the exception of Nostratic (historical support and interest) and Altaic (ongoing interest despite lack of evidence, some serious scholarship still being done), most of the hypothetical macrofamily articles should be merged into one. I don't think we need thousands of words in tables explaining cognates in theories which are rejected by mainstream linguists, especially because I've seen more than a little clear evidence that the way these are presented are confusing lay-readers into assuming they are taken more seriously than just a proposal by one or two linguists. I'm afraid that my attempts to be bold look more reckless to people unfamiliar with historical linguistics, and I'd rather not do this solo in that context.
Given the liklihood that non-experts would weigh in, I think it's best if there is a coordinated effort to clean up some of the more fringe-adjascent articles on Wikipedia rather than attempting to do it solo and risk looking like I'm pushing an agenda. This is particlarly true when an idea falls so far outside the mainstream consensus that there actually aren't many linguists talking about it at all beyond a tiny cadre publishing on a given topic. It's quite challenging to provide negative evidence for things linguists don't take seriously, for obvious reasons. Warrenmck ( talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
...with the exception of Nostratic and Altaic...: I haven't been sufficiently clear about it in my response in the a few sections further above, but 1) macrofamily proposals are not just some kind amorphous undifferentiated mass of bullshit. And 2) there are more notable macrofamily proposals than just Nostratic and Altaic. There are e.g. Penutian and Hokan which are heuristically appealing but actually not built on any significant amount of substantial evindence except for some interlocking lower-level proposals with various degrees of plausibility, yet these two marcofamilies have haunted the linguistics of Native American languages as high-visbility axioms for more than a century. Some proposals are only weakly supported by the data, but have gained much attention and coverage by scholars outside of linguistics and are often treated by them as established language families, e.g. Elamo-Dravidian or Dene-Yeniseian. Our readers will come across these proposals in otherwise very valuable literature about archeology, population genetics etc., so we need articles for these notable concepts in order to present what specialists have to say about them. And then there are success stories like Austro-Tai (and probably some others outside of my line of research).
We are having a bit of a debate at Talk:Non-science#Place of linguistics (at the literal page Non-science, of all topics). Would love others to weigh in. Wolfdog ( talk) 13:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I need help with placing the citation needed tags. The article is almost completely unsourced and there is an editor who keeps edit warring with me, has zero interest in providing the required sources and now refuses to speak to me because I can't write in Dutch, which is ridiculous. Stonewalling at its best. Platdiets needs to be either filled with the CN tags or made into a redirect. Sol505000 ( talk) 05:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
And there is another edit warrior on Chinese Wikipedia. Sol505000 ( talk) 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Linguistic typology |
---|
Morphological |
Morphosyntactic |
Word order |
Lexicon |
Word order |
English equivalent |
Proportion of languages |
Example languages | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SOV | "Cows grass eat." | 45% | Ancient Greek, Bengali, Burmese, Hindi/ Urdu, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Oromo, Persian, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Turkish, etc | |
SVO | "Cows eat grass." | 42% | Chinese, English, French, Hausa, Hebrew, Arabic, Italian, Malay, Portuguese, Spanish, Swahili, Thai, Vietnamese, etc | |
VSO | "Eat cows grass." | 9% | Biblical Hebrew, Classical Arabic, Filipino, Geʽez, Irish, Māori, Tuareg-Berber, Welsh | |
VOS | "Eat grass cows." | 3% | Car, Fijian, Malagasy, Qʼeqchiʼ, Terêna | |
OVS | "Grass eat cows." | 1% | Hixkaryana, Urarina | |
OSV | "Grass cows eat." | 0% | Tobati, Warao | |
Frequency distribution of word order in languages surveyed by Russell S. Tomlin in the 1980s [1] [2] ( ) |
Each of the six articles on specific orders (but not the umbrella article Word order!) has this pair of huge boxes, squeezing the main text into an awkwardly narrow column. Talk me out of removing Template:Language word order frequency from the six and replacing it with a paraphrase of the relevant row of the table. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
References
@All: Please have a look at what's going on in Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu, Help:IPA/Nepali and Help:IPA/Marathi. Some of you already have chimed in, but this needs wider input and monitoring. Austronesier ( talk) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This article has been completely rewritten in a way that flatly contradicts earlier versions. More eyes would be welcome. Srnec ( talk) 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to get together a page on phonemic and phonetic pangrams, specifically those used in speech and accent research. I drafted a page on Please call Stella but realise that there are more sentences that have been used but that finding their first use is difficult. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Ej159 ( talk) 10:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Walhaz#Requested move 1 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SilverLocust 💬 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Our article starts out:
"H₂weh₁-yú is the reconstructed name of the god of the wind in Proto-Indo-European mythology."
Our AfD nomination:
"This is not an encyclopedic topic. It is a bunch of synthesis based around a name that is not attested by anyone other than Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists. It is a modern creation being fraudulently passed off as ancient."
I can't tell for sure but I suspect some of the other participants don't know what they're taking about. I know I don't.
I think this discussion could benefit strongly from participation by people who know something about Proto-Indo-European topics. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 22:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the "local pronunciation" in the opening sentence of Toronto fixed or removed, but (a) as an IP, I can't edit a locked article; and (b) participants in the Talk discussion have declined to help as they have no understanding of IPA, and are unable to understand the notation and jargon in this PDF.
There's a commenter who insists they hear [ə] instead of [oʊ] in videos such as this. I don't know how to respond to this.
See: Talk:Toronto#"Local" pronunciation is archaic (note: I made an initial error in assuming the "[təˈɹɒɾ̃ə] / [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə]" pronunciation given was "archaic". It turns out it's a rural, non-local pronunciation, rather than a local one that's fallen out of use). 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:AE4C:7DF0:1BA5:297E ( talk) 11:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently working on an article for the dialect of Tangier, Virginia in a sandbox (feel free to edit). I've found a couple of journal articles that go into great detail on the specifics of vowel stressing in this dialect, but I'm very much unfamiliar with WP's IPA conventions and how they would map to the transcriptions provided in the journal articles. These articles are also from the '80s and use conventions that slightly differ from the ones I'm familiar with, which complicates things a little more. I'm specifically referring to the table in the "Phonological features section"; any help with this would be much appreciated. AviationFreak 💬 05:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Simple past § Merger discussion. A user has proposed merging Simple past to Preterite. Cnilep ( talk) 07:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Per a discussion at
WT:DYK § Horror aequi, I was wondering if some boilerplate explanations of the use of *
and ?
in linguistic contexts could be discussed here before using them in articles. (See
Asterisks § Linguistics for more info on the subject.) My suggestions are (depending on the usage):
I'm not crazy about using "form" in the first example, but "word, phrase or sentence" is a little long.
What think ye? Is there already something better out there? — AjaxSmack 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I actually think a larger problem can be pointed to here: any page that employs such symbols should either define them or pipe them to some article that will explain their meaning. For example, the template IPAc-en sends newcomers in a helpful direction. Wolfdog ( talk) 22:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Since the Dené–Caucasian languages appear to be lumpering, I've nominated their proto-languages for outright deletion rather than merger. Feel free to discuss the nomination if you are so inclined. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
In the spirit of @ John M Wolfson's AfD above, I've thrown up Proto-Altaic as well. Please join the discussion if you're interested. Warrenmck ( talk) 21:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Variety (linguistics) § Requested move 25 September 2023. Nardog ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Please contribute thoughts to two merger discussions:
Thanks for any comments. Wolfdog ( talk) 01:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Communication for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers and I was wondering whether some of the people here are inclined to have a look at it. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. Phlsph7 ( talk) 10:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like Help-class from your banner. If Help-class is removed, then all the pages in Category:Help-Class Linguistics articles will go back into Category:NA-Class Linguistics articles where they were originally. Please let me know if you have any questions — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about what ontology to use to organize a series of articles about Chinese Characters. A key topic is what ontological patterns have been used for other similar groups of articles about other languages, so I'm seeking views from editors that have experience in this space. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 20:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in linguistics. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 00:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Your input is invited at Articles for deletion/ELRA Language Resources Association
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
I'm concerned about the number of multi-word phrases that have been placed in this Category -- particularly in subcategories such as Category:1950s neologisms. Many of them are catchphrases from popular culture, advertsing slogans, quotes from movies, passages from literature, etc.
Examples: Charlie Brown, you blockhead; Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids; The name's Bond... James Bond; Have you no sense of decency; Nadir of American race relations; Do not go gentle into that good night; What's good for General Motors is good for the country.
Those were just a small sample. I just don't see how these phrases can *properly* be considered neologisms -- they are merely phrases (consisting of commonly-used words) that happen to have become popular during a certain period of time.
Frankly, it is incomrehensible that so many of these phrases have been added into Categories intended for neologisms. I am happy to do my share of the work removing these improperly categorized articles, but I can't take on the whole job myself. Can I count on folks here to help out in a big way? Regards, Anomalous+0 ( talk) 06:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for Joshua Katz (classicist). Does he appear to meet notability for his academic work? Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 16:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, please upvote for my suggestion to access the John Benjamins e-Platform in the Wikipedia Library: the link is here, search for "John Benjamins" and click the "Upvote"-button. The site hosts Diachronica, Journal of Historical Linguistics, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area and loads of other journals relevant for this project. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Your comments at either discussion at Talk:When the going gets tough, the tough get going would be appreciated. I'd be inclined to delete the article per WP:NOTDICT. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Would some of the members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Miroglyph? It's newly created, but didn't get reviewed by AfC. I've done some minor MOS cleanup, but it's still contain way to many Wikilinks to pages that don't really need to be linked. There's also a question about whether it meets WP:NOTNEO, but that would be better assessed perhaps by users more familiar with articles about neologisms. The article appears to have been created a part of a university course ( Wikipedia:GLAM/UNIPD/Digital_History). The course appears to be for an Italian University and some of the content in the article might be translated from other Wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor that's been edit warring with me on
Spanish language over the inclusion of a third IPA transcription with ⟨ʝ⟩ (so
[kasteˈʝano] alongside
[kasteˈʎano]) is continuously refusing to engage with me on
Help talk:IPA/Spanish#Yeísmo. Instead, he's writing blatantly false edit summaries such as Undid revision 1095685100 by Sol505000 (talk) rv per Help:IPA/Spanish: For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. In this instance, the two most common standard forms are helpful. See also article text: In most dialects it (/ʎ/) has been merged with /ʝ/ in the merger called yeísmo
when it is clear that Castellano is not one of "terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo". Not only that, the guide explicitly says that ⟨ʝ⟩ is to be used INSTEAD of ⟨ʎ⟩ in such cases. Do we really need to retranscribe hundreds if not thousands of words to make the variant with [ʝ] explicit? Your input would be appreciated.
Sol505000 (
talk) 11:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Around two weeks ago, I asked a question at the Teahouse regarding whether there is any "official Wikipedia policy" regarding the selection of comparison texts or sample texts for different languages (e.g. Lord's Prayer, Article 1 of the UDHR, The North Wind and the Sun etc.). I was redirected to WikiProject Languages where I asked the same question again on the talk page. Since it's been, well, a bit over two weeks and I haven't got any response, I thought I'd ask here.
The question is this: on the Wikipedia articles on different languages, there are often example texts or language comparison texts that are used to give a brief idea of the character of the language and to compare it with English. However, as far as I can tell, the selection of these texts is not consistent: for example, Latin uses a sample of De Bello Gallico, Esperanto uses a sample text about dragons in China and Article 1 of the UDHR, French language also uses Article 1 of the UDHR, and so on. Is there any specific Wikipedia policy regarding what text to use as a sample text/comparison text, or is it down to editor judgement? If there is an official Wikipedia policy regarding this, could you please provide a link to the corresponding page?
Thanks — MeasureWell ( talk) 09:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
All comments on a possibly controversial moving proposal would be highly appreciated here. Borsoka ( talk) 03:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Akerbeltz has been edit warring with me over the inclusion of the primary stress mark on Help:IPA/Basque and the corresponding IPA transcriptions of Basque on Wikipedia. Per MOS:PRON (section Other languages), the two should agree with each other. I invite you to join the discussion on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Sol505000 ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Now taken to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Sol505000 ( talk) 21:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
New Template:Wiktionarylang may be used to add a small box flush right with a link to a term in a foreign language wiktionary. If you're familiar with {{ Wikisourcelang}}, the operation of the new template is similar, and uses the same four positional parameters, and adds one more to allow you to specify 'section' (as in this example), 'paragraph', and so on instead of 'article'. Mathglot ( talk) 02:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I've refactored this page a bit and added discussion of the form of vṛddhi (proto-vṛddhi) present in Proto-Indo-European and its relation to Sanskrit Vṛddhi. Does anyone have any thoughts on the third section? I moved some content to the origin section, but I wasn't sure what do do with the rest. Jajaperson ( talk) 09:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Planet#Mythology and naming? The article's currently undergoing FAR, and because of a remark about the citations, I just noticed that the listed etymologies for the Arabic names of the planets seem to disagree with Wiktionary, and there's a bewildering amount of different opinions from sources. I'd like to know what the current scholarly consensus is (assuming there even is one). Double sharp ( talk) 15:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I just realized we had an article on " between you and I" via the Reference desk and was surprised to find phrases such as "linguists [who] accept the grammaticality" and "prescriptive linguists". The article seems to engage in undue both-sidesism and conflate grammaticality (over which there is no debate) and acceptability, instead of discussing scholarly description and lay commentary separately. I might look into it when I have time but I'm leaving a note here so someone already familiar with the topic can tackle it. Nardog ( talk) 05:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback regarding parameter |ethnicity=
in
Template:Infobox language would be appreciated. Please see
this discussion. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a recent proposal to merge causative alternation and labile verb articles.
Not being a linguist, I had asked a question on the causative alternation talk page: how it this different than ergativity? Editor @ AjaxSmack: considered the question, and proposed merging.
I figure that since few people seem to be minding those pages, it might make sense to post a note here.
Also: the labile verb article is not claimed by Wikiproject Linguistics, which looks like an oversight. I will add it. ( Ergative verb redirects to labile verb, by the way.) -- M.boli ( talk) 13:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly new here and noticed that many different styles seem to be used across Wikipedia for glosses. I enjoy consistency.
In 2015, MOS:SINGLE for glosses was added per discussions here and here. I find this rule lessens readability and without precedence elsewhere online or offline; I'm curious if others share the readability concern.
Here are the four options as I see it:
option | appearance | precedence | downside |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 'single straight quotes' | MOS:SINGLE | apostrophe overloading, readability (?) |
2 | "double straight quotes" | ? | potential double quote overloading (?) |
3 | ‘single curly quotes’ | oed.com, widely used in print | opposes MOS:CQ, harder to type |
4 | “double straight quotes” | Wiktionary, MW online, LSJ online | opposes MOS:CQ, harder to type |
Two remarks:
{{
lang}}
, then type-ability may be less of downside; see also
Quotation marks in English#Typing_quotation_marks_on_a_computer_keyboard.Do you share the readability concern? 'wɪnd ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
"we use single quotes because it's normal linguistics markup for glosses, and that we use straight ones for this purpose (and all other quote-marks purposes) because of MOS:CURLY, but the user is just not getting it". Yes, I hear this and agree with all of this as I believe I told you earlier: (a) the precedence in print is to use single curly quotes and (b) MOS:CQ is Wikipedia convention. The core point is that I find combining these rule leads to readability concerns and has no precedent elsewhere, and I wondered if others share this view? Also, I'd like to kindly ask you to assume good faith. I'm new to Wikipedia, and this kind of communication makes me feel uncomfortable. I do very much want to understand my mistakes and I believe I'm learning and adapting. 'wɪnd ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello
I just created the PHOIBLE article.
Feel free to review it and make changes and additions, as my English and knowledge of wp.en editing practices isn't perfect.
I also added it in the Lexical databases section of the Template:Cross-Linguistic Linked Data.
Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The name for
ISO 639-3 code
arc changed in 2007. This should be reflected in the link of {{
lang-arc}}
. I started a discussion at
Template talk:lang-arc#Change language link to Imperial Aramaic respectively
Module talk:Lang/data#Template-protected edit request on 25 September 2022. I‘d be glad for your input.
S.K. (
talk) 21:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
In June, I have substantially expanded and also updated the article about Slovene phonology and thus the help page is not in accordance with the phonology article and has to be updated as well. I have posted my thoughts on the talk page, but so far no one has commented. If you are interested, please visit the talk page and post your comment there. (I was directed here from the help desk) Garygo golob ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Classical compound#Requested move 25 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that we don't have consistency among our templates about translation, e.g.:
lang-xx
templates, for example {{
lang-fa}}
renders as:
{{
literal translation}}
renders as:
{{
translation}}
renders as:
Because of these different layouts' lack of consistency, using them in the same page makes it very confusing. We should set a norm, with an eye to the
Manual of Style/Text formatting.
IMHO the first layout is preferable, being already used by all lang-xx
templates, but we must decide it together, so, in the end...
What's the preferable layout?
Let me know, thanks. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 10:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
literal translation}}
and {{
translation}}
templates into this discussion. Please don't do that; it just makes reading the wikitext that much more difficult. Because it does make reading more difficult, I have removed the template code from your post and replaced it with simpler examples.{{lang|fa|[[wikt:سرای#Persian|سرای]]}} {{transl|fa|sarāy}} 'palace'.
can be simplified:
{{lang-fa|[[wikt:سرای#Persian|سرای]]|sarāy|palace|label=none}}
→
سرای, sarāy, 'palace'The Italian Treccani dictionary gives two derivations: one via Turkish: seray or saray (with the variants seraya or saraya), which comes from Persian: سرای, romanized: sarāy, lit. 'palace' or, per derivation, the enclosed court for the wives and concubines of the harem of a house or palace (see § Harem); the other — in the sense of enclosure — from Late/ Medieval Latin: serraculum, derived from Classical Latin serare, lit. 'to close', which comes from sera, lit. 'door-bar'
stuff like "transl." and "lit."are not needed for proper rendering and pronunciation. Browsers and screen readers use the underlying html for that. No doubt, the "transl." and "lit." (because they are marked up with
<abbr>...</abbr>
tags) are read by screen readers as 'translation' and 'literal translation' respectively.{{code|{{literal translation|palace}}}}
<abbr style="font-size:85%" title="literal translation">lit.</abbr><span style="white-space: nowrap;"> </span><span class="gloss-quot">'</span><span class="gloss-text">palace</span><span class="gloss-quot">'</span>
{{
literal translation}}
and {{
translation}}
? Surely we can make {{translation}}
do the work of {{literal translation}}
; it already has |literal=
so:
{{literal translation|palace}}
→
lit. 'palace'{{translation|palace|literal=yes}}
→
lit. transl. palace@
Uanfala and
Trappist the monk: So what about following the lang-xx
standard, replacing
lit. 'word' with
lit. 'word'?
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
PS. Note that the lang-xx
standard doesn't make difference between translation and literal translation.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 14:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The topic regularly comes back, so I started a discussion here, to assess Ethnologue in WP:RSP. Feedback welcome! A455bcd9 ( talk) 07:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback on "types" of Communication would be helpful at Talk:Communication/Archive 1#Types of communication. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether the article Vowel breaking is at the right location/about the scope of the article at Talk:Vowel breaking#Page at right location?.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted a recent edit [1]. The edit claimed that Noakhailla language is not listed in Glottolog and therefore it should not be listed in Bengali-Assamese languages. It seems to me that this issue is better addressed in Noakhailla language first. Also that Dhakaiyya Kutti is a dialect of Bengali language. Since Dhaka Bengali is yet another standard of the Bengali language, I wonder how this can be best represented. Could some linguists please provide some inputs here. Thanks. Chaipau ( talk) 16:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you just walk in and join or there are requirements OSC221 ( talk) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of the pages listed in Category:Women Linguists are not listed in Category:Linguists. Also some of the Linguists are women and are not listed in that category. There are 679 women linguists and only 146 linguists total! What's the quickest way to fix this? ImSirLaserOwl ( talk) 02:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The above two stub articles have been proposed for deletion following a discussion here. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 13:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I've made a series of edits at Deverbal noun cutting out unsourced content (which was almost everything) and reorganizing it as a stub. I've proposed a couple of ways forward at Talk:Deverbal noun#Merge or rewrite, and your feedback would be welcome. Mathglot ( talk) 06:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I proposed a new class for the WPLING template to group Help articles over at Template talk:WikiProject Linguistics. If I don't get any objections, I'll move forward with the changes in a few days to a week. Indigopari ( talk) 04:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze#Requested move 26 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 19:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing request for discussion concerning whether First Nations placenames can be used in the infobox on Wikipedia. Please provide your feedback here. Poketama ( talk) 02:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As the naming of anything seems a matter perhaps relevant to this project, members may be interested in an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars named for their duration. There is also perhaps a missing article to be written on the subject of Naming of wars or Names of wars. Pam D 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a project-related afd here, the input of Wikipedians familiar with the topic wold be welcome. Warrenmck ( talk) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
There's an article on the proposed Uralo-Siberian languages which needs a heavy rewrite to meet wikipedia's standards. Right now it's essentially falling flat on the guidelines for how to handle WP:FRINGE considering it's being presented as a serious theory, even including references to how it can evidence Nostratic (which I've removed). I'm not 100% certain if this needs a rewrite to discuss its current status as a fairly rejected macrofamily proposal, or if it honestly simply fails WP:N. Either way, it definitely shouldn't be presented as a seriously considered and somewhat accepted proposal considering how little evidence/acceptance it has found.
Perhaps it would make sense to have a proposed macrofamily article which weighs several of these smaller theories, rather than giving each of them their own article? This is done somewhat on the pages for language isolates like Basque when discussing proposed genetic links. Warrenmck ( talk) 20:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Bhoti is currently a disambiguation page listing various articles about languages called Bhoti. On the talk page, I've written a bit about why there should likely be one broad-concept article discussing all the "varieties" of Bhoti. If anyone with more technical expertise in sociolinguistics and/or historical linguistics could give their two cents on the thread, it would be much appreciated! — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 16:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there's value in removing pages such as Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots which contain wonderful statements like
(emphasis added)
There's a huge amount of bad linguistics on a lot of these articles which run directly counter to the academic consensus, and many of these treat fringe theories well outside the norm of academic consensus as a given in how they are written. I would like to spend some time doing a substantial overhaul of these articles, including AfDing some like above (rejected macrofamilies should, frankly, not have their own articles dedicated to reconstructed roots in my opinion, but I'd like to see other input), but I think I'm running up against an issue with the sheer volume that has been written by proponents of these theories creating a false narrative that these are controversial, rather than widely rejected (for example, I was recently accused of attempting to "push an agenda" for calling Nostratic a fringe theory).
As I mentioned in my post a couple of days ago, I think the solution here is to, with the exception of Nostratic (historical support and interest) and Altaic (ongoing interest despite lack of evidence, some serious scholarship still being done), most of the hypothetical macrofamily articles should be merged into one. I don't think we need thousands of words in tables explaining cognates in theories which are rejected by mainstream linguists, especially because I've seen more than a little clear evidence that the way these are presented are confusing lay-readers into assuming they are taken more seriously than just a proposal by one or two linguists. I'm afraid that my attempts to be bold look more reckless to people unfamiliar with historical linguistics, and I'd rather not do this solo in that context.
Given the liklihood that non-experts would weigh in, I think it's best if there is a coordinated effort to clean up some of the more fringe-adjascent articles on Wikipedia rather than attempting to do it solo and risk looking like I'm pushing an agenda. This is particlarly true when an idea falls so far outside the mainstream consensus that there actually aren't many linguists talking about it at all beyond a tiny cadre publishing on a given topic. It's quite challenging to provide negative evidence for things linguists don't take seriously, for obvious reasons. Warrenmck ( talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
...with the exception of Nostratic and Altaic...: I haven't been sufficiently clear about it in my response in the a few sections further above, but 1) macrofamily proposals are not just some kind amorphous undifferentiated mass of bullshit. And 2) there are more notable macrofamily proposals than just Nostratic and Altaic. There are e.g. Penutian and Hokan which are heuristically appealing but actually not built on any significant amount of substantial evindence except for some interlocking lower-level proposals with various degrees of plausibility, yet these two marcofamilies have haunted the linguistics of Native American languages as high-visbility axioms for more than a century. Some proposals are only weakly supported by the data, but have gained much attention and coverage by scholars outside of linguistics and are often treated by them as established language families, e.g. Elamo-Dravidian or Dene-Yeniseian. Our readers will come across these proposals in otherwise very valuable literature about archeology, population genetics etc., so we need articles for these notable concepts in order to present what specialists have to say about them. And then there are success stories like Austro-Tai (and probably some others outside of my line of research).
We are having a bit of a debate at Talk:Non-science#Place of linguistics (at the literal page Non-science, of all topics). Would love others to weigh in. Wolfdog ( talk) 13:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I need help with placing the citation needed tags. The article is almost completely unsourced and there is an editor who keeps edit warring with me, has zero interest in providing the required sources and now refuses to speak to me because I can't write in Dutch, which is ridiculous. Stonewalling at its best. Platdiets needs to be either filled with the CN tags or made into a redirect. Sol505000 ( talk) 05:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
And there is another edit warrior on Chinese Wikipedia. Sol505000 ( talk) 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Linguistic typology |
---|
Morphological |
Morphosyntactic |
Word order |
Lexicon |
Word order |
English equivalent |
Proportion of languages |
Example languages | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SOV | "Cows grass eat." | 45% | Ancient Greek, Bengali, Burmese, Hindi/ Urdu, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Oromo, Persian, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Turkish, etc | |
SVO | "Cows eat grass." | 42% | Chinese, English, French, Hausa, Hebrew, Arabic, Italian, Malay, Portuguese, Spanish, Swahili, Thai, Vietnamese, etc | |
VSO | "Eat cows grass." | 9% | Biblical Hebrew, Classical Arabic, Filipino, Geʽez, Irish, Māori, Tuareg-Berber, Welsh | |
VOS | "Eat grass cows." | 3% | Car, Fijian, Malagasy, Qʼeqchiʼ, Terêna | |
OVS | "Grass eat cows." | 1% | Hixkaryana, Urarina | |
OSV | "Grass cows eat." | 0% | Tobati, Warao | |
Frequency distribution of word order in languages surveyed by Russell S. Tomlin in the 1980s [1] [2] ( ) |
Each of the six articles on specific orders (but not the umbrella article Word order!) has this pair of huge boxes, squeezing the main text into an awkwardly narrow column. Talk me out of removing Template:Language word order frequency from the six and replacing it with a paraphrase of the relevant row of the table. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
References
@All: Please have a look at what's going on in Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu, Help:IPA/Nepali and Help:IPA/Marathi. Some of you already have chimed in, but this needs wider input and monitoring. Austronesier ( talk) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This article has been completely rewritten in a way that flatly contradicts earlier versions. More eyes would be welcome. Srnec ( talk) 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to get together a page on phonemic and phonetic pangrams, specifically those used in speech and accent research. I drafted a page on Please call Stella but realise that there are more sentences that have been used but that finding their first use is difficult. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Ej159 ( talk) 10:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Walhaz#Requested move 1 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SilverLocust 💬 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Our article starts out:
"H₂weh₁-yú is the reconstructed name of the god of the wind in Proto-Indo-European mythology."
Our AfD nomination:
"This is not an encyclopedic topic. It is a bunch of synthesis based around a name that is not attested by anyone other than Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists. It is a modern creation being fraudulently passed off as ancient."
I can't tell for sure but I suspect some of the other participants don't know what they're taking about. I know I don't.
I think this discussion could benefit strongly from participation by people who know something about Proto-Indo-European topics. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 22:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the "local pronunciation" in the opening sentence of Toronto fixed or removed, but (a) as an IP, I can't edit a locked article; and (b) participants in the Talk discussion have declined to help as they have no understanding of IPA, and are unable to understand the notation and jargon in this PDF.
There's a commenter who insists they hear [ə] instead of [oʊ] in videos such as this. I don't know how to respond to this.
See: Talk:Toronto#"Local" pronunciation is archaic (note: I made an initial error in assuming the "[təˈɹɒɾ̃ə] / [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə]" pronunciation given was "archaic". It turns out it's a rural, non-local pronunciation, rather than a local one that's fallen out of use). 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:AE4C:7DF0:1BA5:297E ( talk) 11:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently working on an article for the dialect of Tangier, Virginia in a sandbox (feel free to edit). I've found a couple of journal articles that go into great detail on the specifics of vowel stressing in this dialect, but I'm very much unfamiliar with WP's IPA conventions and how they would map to the transcriptions provided in the journal articles. These articles are also from the '80s and use conventions that slightly differ from the ones I'm familiar with, which complicates things a little more. I'm specifically referring to the table in the "Phonological features section"; any help with this would be much appreciated. AviationFreak 💬 05:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Simple past § Merger discussion. A user has proposed merging Simple past to Preterite. Cnilep ( talk) 07:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Per a discussion at
WT:DYK § Horror aequi, I was wondering if some boilerplate explanations of the use of *
and ?
in linguistic contexts could be discussed here before using them in articles. (See
Asterisks § Linguistics for more info on the subject.) My suggestions are (depending on the usage):
I'm not crazy about using "form" in the first example, but "word, phrase or sentence" is a little long.
What think ye? Is there already something better out there? — AjaxSmack 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I actually think a larger problem can be pointed to here: any page that employs such symbols should either define them or pipe them to some article that will explain their meaning. For example, the template IPAc-en sends newcomers in a helpful direction. Wolfdog ( talk) 22:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Since the Dené–Caucasian languages appear to be lumpering, I've nominated their proto-languages for outright deletion rather than merger. Feel free to discuss the nomination if you are so inclined. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
In the spirit of @ John M Wolfson's AfD above, I've thrown up Proto-Altaic as well. Please join the discussion if you're interested. Warrenmck ( talk) 21:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Variety (linguistics) § Requested move 25 September 2023. Nardog ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Please contribute thoughts to two merger discussions:
Thanks for any comments. Wolfdog ( talk) 01:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Communication for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers and I was wondering whether some of the people here are inclined to have a look at it. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. Phlsph7 ( talk) 10:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like Help-class from your banner. If Help-class is removed, then all the pages in Category:Help-Class Linguistics articles will go back into Category:NA-Class Linguistics articles where they were originally. Please let me know if you have any questions — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about what ontology to use to organize a series of articles about Chinese Characters. A key topic is what ontological patterns have been used for other similar groups of articles about other languages, so I'm seeking views from editors that have experience in this space. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 20:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in linguistics. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 00:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Your input is invited at Articles for deletion/ELRA Language Resources Association
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)