Zeeshan Mehood
I was really surprised to find blatant hoaxes by Zeeshan Mehmood's IPs in core articles such as Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit Baltistan which I had to just remove: [1], [2]. I came across a whole host of hoaxes by his IPs, some of which had been there for years really surprised as to how someone didn't notice them till now. Really egregious are his edits about the "provincial symbols", just FYI no province/territory of Pakistan has official symbols besides Sindh (which are limited to a bird, mammal and tree), and Pakistan's symbols are limited to these. Any other listings of symbols (sports, dances, animals etc.) are blatant hoaxes by him. What makes it more difficult is that he repeats his hoaxes across articles so it becomes difficult to easily identify them.
Please see if you can keep an eye on the provinces of Pakistan (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit Baltistan, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Azad Kashmir, ICT)?) for hoaxes/edits by his socks, other articles that need to be under watch are the national symbols ones (i.e., Dish, Epic, Flower, Patron saint, Personification, Animals, Birds, Dances, Fruits, Instruments, Trees). Another problem is that he targets not only Pakistan but other countries as well with his hoaxes. These will be a bit easier to stomp out if we can at least stop his hoaxes on the core articles (provinces/symbol list ones). Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good catch! So far, I've generally reverted on sight any edits that add state or province symbols if they come from an IP geolocating to the Greater Manchester area. But I don't keep an eye on everything, and obviously I haven't checked all the pre-existing content in the articles that I watch. That addition to Gilgit-Baltistan was made five years ago [3]! Zeshan Mahmood is especially difficult to track as he hits a number of countries (including India), and a range of articles: in addition to states and provinces, there's stuff like Fauna of Pakistan, articles about individual species, foods, dances, etc. (there are hundreds of them), he sometimes even requests redirects at WP:AFC/R. Pinging Kautilya3, Fylindfotberserk and Arjayay, who I assume watch a lot of the articles concerned – you're all probably already aware of that, but just in case. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vow! I wasn't aware of any of this. I will keep an eye out for provincial symbols. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vow! I wasn't aware of any of this. I will keep an eye out for provincial symbols. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters
I'm gonna move onto a different category to clean, but you may want to take a look through Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters to see if there's any other parameters you want to get added to the template before I return. The easiest approach may be to use the navigation at the top to jump to each letter and find them that way. JPG-GR (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I imagine it must be annoying on your side. I don't think the recent addition to Template:WikiProject Pakistan of unknown parameter checking has taken into account the parameters actually in use for the template. There appears to have been some detailed sub-classification with parameters like
|Literature=
or|Lahore=
. I see that Mar4d has done a lot of tagging here – Mar4d, are these parameters still likely to be used, or should we let people remove them? I've tweaked the template to allow parameters for Punjab, KP and Kashmir, as these appear useful, but how many of the others are needed? – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)- Uanfala Thanks for pinging me. Some of these projects were deleted for reasons I can't fathom, even while other provincial projects still have their parameters intact (e.g. Sindh, Balochistan) for many, many years. Given the sheer number of articles tagged under the Punjab/Khyber/Kashmir projects, I'd rather not have these tags removed, given the possibility that these projects may likely be revived and better organised in the near future (and because the precedent exists for other provinces), and also because it won't be the most constructive use of time. Therefore, my opinion would be to keep all of the following parameters on Template:WikiProject Pakistan: Punjab, Khyber, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir and Gilgit. I see you've made adjustments in that regard. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) If it were up to me, I'd also merge and redirect Template:WikiProject Karachi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sindh into the main template but I don't have much knowledge of how that would work.
- While we're at this, is it also possible to add importance ratings for each of the above subprojects into the Pakistan WikiProject template? Mar4d (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've just added the
|importance=
parameters to the list of accepted parameters [4]. Your point was for the importance ratings to be displayed, right? I'll have to look how that's done, but if you have any specific edits in mind, let me know. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've just added the
- While we're at this, is it also possible to add importance ratings for each of the above subprojects into the Pakistan WikiProject template? Mar4d (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Uanfala Thanks for pinging me. Some of these projects were deleted for reasons I can't fathom, even while other provincial projects still have their parameters intact (e.g. Sindh, Balochistan) for many, many years. Given the sheer number of articles tagged under the Punjab/Khyber/Kashmir projects, I'd rather not have these tags removed, given the possibility that these projects may likely be revived and better organised in the near future (and because the precedent exists for other provinces), and also because it won't be the most constructive use of time. Therefore, my opinion would be to keep all of the following parameters on Template:WikiProject Pakistan: Punjab, Khyber, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir and Gilgit. I see you've made adjustments in that regard. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) If it were up to me, I'd also merge and redirect Template:WikiProject Karachi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sindh into the main template but I don't have much knowledge of how that would work.
Nomination of Arbol for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arbol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbol 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. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy Diwali!
Happy Diwali!!! | ||
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
|
- Ah, it's today. Happy Diwali! – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Siding
The discussion at Talk:Siding (construction) has died off. I thought it was clear that we should not send 80% of the readers unnecessarily through the dab but, some disagree. So should I open another RM at this point? Newest numbers are still 75/25.MB 23:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, a new RM sounds like the only way forward. I don't think I will be able to go as far as supporting the move myself – I personally use a higher threshold for primary topics than most other people, but I certainly won't oppose it either: there's a strong case here, and a move back to the primary title will undoubtedly be of benefit to many readers. I expect most participants will support it. – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Long comment on Tropical sage
Thanks for the note about the comment; I will try to remember that when editing disambiguation pages and probably should have noticed that sooner. I just read the discussion on {{long comment}} and while disambiguation pages may not appear Special:ShortPages, the final comment confirms that set index articless are still included; you can see that Tropical sage is currently on the list. —Ost (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I hadn't noticed the page was a set index article, and I wasn't aware these were not excluded from the short pages report either. Thanks for finding that out! – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for saving the articles from drowning
I just wanted to say "Thank you!" again for rescuing Belokhvostik and Mikhailovsky Square articles. Your support is very much appreciated! Sincerely, Partizan Kuzya (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, but I didn't do anything, apart from standing at the side and whining. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Atropatene = azerbaijan
Hello, Atropatene is the ancient name of the region of Azerbaijan. This is a historical fact. please dont delete my edits. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad785 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atropatene is indeed the ancient name of Iranian Azerbaijan, not Azerbaijan. Old Azeri is not the ancient langauge of Azerbaijanis (as for the other part of your disruptive edits, which you do not address). Stating that ancient Azerbaijanis (WP:OR) spoke Old Azeri is pure anachronistic irredentism.[5] One more revert spree and I will report your personally to ANI. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mohammad785, this is about your addition of entries for Old Azeri, Atropatene and Ottoman-Safavid War (1603-1618) to the page Azerbaijan (disambiguation). That page is a disambiguation page, its only purpose is to provide navigation to the various articles whose topics are known as "Azerbaijan". See the line at the top of the page? It says
Azerbaijan or Azərbaycan may also refer to:
Can the word "Azerbaijan" ever refer to the Old Azeri language, or that 17th-century battle? I'd be really surprised if it did. Feel free to explain if you believe the opposite is true, but please don't go on like that. You've been reverted there several times by several people, and if you continue edit warring, the only thing you're likely to achieve is getting yourself blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mohammad785, this is about your addition of entries for Old Azeri, Atropatene and Ottoman-Safavid War (1603-1618) to the page Azerbaijan (disambiguation). That page is a disambiguation page, its only purpose is to provide navigation to the various articles whose topics are known as "Azerbaijan". See the line at the top of the page? It says
Yes, I agree with you, and I may have been wrong about the ancient Azeri and the Safavid-Ottoman war, and that Albania is now in Europe and no longer belongs to the Caucasus, but the real name of Azerbaijan is Aran, and this page is about Azerbaijan. Not about the country of Aran (the fake Republic of Azerbaijan). Before becoming an independent country, Aran was part of Iran along with Azerbaijan, Russia, and Aturpatgan is not only related to Iranian Azerbaijan, it is related to the whole region of Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad785 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Ramsdale
There are hundreds of surname pages containing two names. If you do not like such pages, please oppose all of them.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Valentiny, Grella
- The main reason for having a separate surname article is to provide space for encyclopedic information about the name, like origin and current distribution. If a surname page doesn't contain any content beyond a list of Wikipedia articles, it performs only a navigational function. In such cases, it makes sense to split it out of a dab page if that list of articles becomes too big. For the case of Ramsdale, there are only three entries in total (two of them surnames); distributing three entries across two pages doesn't seem like the optimal navigational solution. – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
My mistake
re [6] yes, that was a mistake. My guess is that I accidentally cut rather than copied but it certainly wasn't intentional! Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Good work Wiki Rajasthan 08:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello Uanfala, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Re:Edit warring and sources
I replaced that source with several reliable sources, including the Census of Pakistan. There should be no issues with the content now. If you have any, you are welcome to discuss them rather than remove them altogether. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can't we keep discussions in one place, please? They're much easier to follow: I've posted on your talk page so I'll be watching it: you don't risk losing me. – Uanfala (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I am extremely upset that you attempted to entirely thwart my efforts to bring the article to DYK status with a subject you only know about peripherally. I would have been happy to find more references and improve the article but you tried to block me from doing so. That was very rude. AnupamTalk 01:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a subject about which I know very little. Are you an expert on mediaeval Indian history, by any chance then? The DYK nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Torwali people. I'm sorry if my commenting there has been perceived as rude. But where else was I to flag the problems with the proposed DYK hook, or with the article section it was based on? – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Uanfala, thank you for replying to my query made at here, though at my personal talk page. You indicate that you "found that article from your contribs" and then happened to open a talk page thread on the most recent edit I made there. Why did you do that? Also, you state that "I haven't look at any other articles there." However, just yesterday you made a sarcastic comment in a bilateral conversation between me another user on his talk page—one with whom you have never interacted with. I wish to assume good faith this time, but I want to inform you of WP:FOLLOWING. I don't want to see this kind of behaviour from you again. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I did the same thing to you. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Would you mind keeping conversations in one place, please? I've posted on your talk page and I'm watching it; incidentally, it was Roxy's unusual edit there that drew me to Alexbrn's talk page (which is what you're referring to). – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have access to the sources that I use, unlike you, who openly admits that you are not. Just on the talk page of the Torwali people, you truncated a quote that User:LearnIndology had to type out in full for others to see the context after you refused to provide it in its entirely. Many of your edits, such as this one dismiss perfectly cited information as "nonsense" because they may conflict with your personal ideology (you have removed in many places anything to do with the pre-Islamic history of northern South Asia). That isn't acceptable on Wikipedia and neither is using misleading edit summaries such as "the statement also appears to be contradicted by the quote". I'm not going to escalate this now but note that I am going to sternly remind you of WP:HOUNDING one more time. As far as your behaviour yesterday and meddling in a bilateral conversation, I do not appreciate it and am firmly telling you not to do it ever again. Thank you, AnupamTalk 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Anupam, if you have read the article Hindko or its sources, you would have known why it's nonsense to be speaking about Hindkowans of the 11th century. If you see any issues with any particular edit I've made, or edit summary I've used, you can let me know. Now, if you really have access to the sources you cite, then you really should first read them before citing them. As I implied on your talk page, I'm not interested in cleaning up after your edits, but that doesn't mean someone won't do it sooner or later. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The source indicated that Hindko-speakers accepted Islam in "recent times" (perhaps like the nearby Torwali speakers who probably became monolithically Muslim by the 17th century); there isn't anything controversial about that and the sentence could have been edited to reflect the original quote from the source (which is probably why that was there in the first place; see WP:V). When I have time, we can revisit that issue on the talk page there. If I didn't have access to the sources I use, then how was I able to create the article in the first place? I had to read about their cuisine, culture, clothing, and history. Did you think I just did a CTRL+F for "food", "history", etc.? For the most part, User:Uanfala, in the past, relations between the two of us have been good and I would hate to spoil that. On articles where our edits intersect, we are usually able to form a consensus on the talk page and I'd like to continue to do that. Please honour my admonishment above with regard to the aforementioned policy and I think we can continue about our work. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- That source – Ibbetson's Glossary should never have been used in the first place. If there are reliable sources about the conversion to Islam, sure, use them. I'm glad you believe our interactions in the past have been amicable, but I can't really say I've been happy. Whenever you've made any substantial edit to an article I watched and cared about, I would have had to spend days tracking down and reading the sources you had ostensibly cited, and then correcting the numerous mistakes you had introduced. If you do read the books and papers you cite, then why do you always seem to misrepresent them? As I wrote on your talk page, I believe you need to fundamentally rethink your approach to writing content. And when other people are subjecting some of it to scrutiny, they're likely not doing it to wind you up, they're doing it because they care about the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's quite alright. I'm not here to make you happy, but to improve coverage on various articles. Unlike most of your edits, which are filled with reverts, arguments, and deletions (and the occasional creation of disambiguation pages), most of my edits involve expanding or creating articles, for which I have been recognized by other editors. That's the very reason your false grievances aren't recognized by any serious editor, as evidenced by the incisive response of the DYK reviewer to you in your baseless accusations against me. It's hard to repeatedly take what you say at face value since your removals give off the impression of being ideologically driven, in addition to the accompanying misleading edit summaries that others have also pointed out (such as today). If you state that "other people are subjecting some of it to scrutiny", that's not what you did yesterday and today with your sarcastic comments. If you'd like to be appreciated, work for it and create content, not tear others down. Cheers, AnupamTalk 00:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- You really don't see the problem, do you? – Uanfala (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem, as I spelled out, was your violation of WP:FOLLOWING and WP:CIVIL. Please don't do it again. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem, Anupam, is that you churn out content on history, ethnography and languages, without doing your research. You refuse to appreciate the distinction between reliable and unreliable sources, you cite books you apparently have not read, and you misrepresent the sources that you cite. This is the problem. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Uanfala, I disproved your claims above and you shouldn't repeat them to obfuscate what you have done. All of the other editors commenting on the talk page of Talk:Torwali people, one of whom is an academic in Indology, agreed with me and none agreed with you, except a WP:SPA editor who was recently named at WP:SPI. Every single source that has discussed the Torwali people has mentioned Raja Gira and you still can't see the relevance of him. That's not my problem; that's yours. The only thing I can do is to fit it in your habitual pattern of removing pre-Islamic heritage of northern South Asia (and trust me, I really want to assume good faith). I can point out examples where you have removed such information, but left completely uncited and far-fetched information intact. Anyways, I do not have time to repeat myself over and over. I have informed you of the appropriate policies regarding your recent behaviour and suggest that you follow them. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in editing and trust that if we disagree again, we can work out the issues on the talk pages of the article. Cheers, AnupamTalk 00:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion you're referring to is at Talk:Torwali people. I'll leave it to others to make their own judgements about who said or what, or about the competence of the "academic in Indology". – Uanfala (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Uanfala, I disproved your claims above and you shouldn't repeat them to obfuscate what you have done. All of the other editors commenting on the talk page of Talk:Torwali people, one of whom is an academic in Indology, agreed with me and none agreed with you, except a WP:SPA editor who was recently named at WP:SPI. Every single source that has discussed the Torwali people has mentioned Raja Gira and you still can't see the relevance of him. That's not my problem; that's yours. The only thing I can do is to fit it in your habitual pattern of removing pre-Islamic heritage of northern South Asia (and trust me, I really want to assume good faith). I can point out examples where you have removed such information, but left completely uncited and far-fetched information intact. Anyways, I do not have time to repeat myself over and over. I have informed you of the appropriate policies regarding your recent behaviour and suggest that you follow them. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in editing and trust that if we disagree again, we can work out the issues on the talk pages of the article. Cheers, AnupamTalk 00:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem, Anupam, is that you churn out content on history, ethnography and languages, without doing your research. You refuse to appreciate the distinction between reliable and unreliable sources, you cite books you apparently have not read, and you misrepresent the sources that you cite. This is the problem. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem, as I spelled out, was your violation of WP:FOLLOWING and WP:CIVIL. Please don't do it again. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- You really don't see the problem, do you? – Uanfala (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's quite alright. I'm not here to make you happy, but to improve coverage on various articles. Unlike most of your edits, which are filled with reverts, arguments, and deletions (and the occasional creation of disambiguation pages), most of my edits involve expanding or creating articles, for which I have been recognized by other editors. That's the very reason your false grievances aren't recognized by any serious editor, as evidenced by the incisive response of the DYK reviewer to you in your baseless accusations against me. It's hard to repeatedly take what you say at face value since your removals give off the impression of being ideologically driven, in addition to the accompanying misleading edit summaries that others have also pointed out (such as today). If you state that "other people are subjecting some of it to scrutiny", that's not what you did yesterday and today with your sarcastic comments. If you'd like to be appreciated, work for it and create content, not tear others down. Cheers, AnupamTalk 00:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- That source – Ibbetson's Glossary should never have been used in the first place. If there are reliable sources about the conversion to Islam, sure, use them. I'm glad you believe our interactions in the past have been amicable, but I can't really say I've been happy. Whenever you've made any substantial edit to an article I watched and cared about, I would have had to spend days tracking down and reading the sources you had ostensibly cited, and then correcting the numerous mistakes you had introduced. If you do read the books and papers you cite, then why do you always seem to misrepresent them? As I wrote on your talk page, I believe you need to fundamentally rethink your approach to writing content. And when other people are subjecting some of it to scrutiny, they're likely not doing it to wind you up, they're doing it because they care about the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The source indicated that Hindko-speakers accepted Islam in "recent times" (perhaps like the nearby Torwali speakers who probably became monolithically Muslim by the 17th century); there isn't anything controversial about that and the sentence could have been edited to reflect the original quote from the source (which is probably why that was there in the first place; see WP:V). When I have time, we can revisit that issue on the talk page there. If I didn't have access to the sources I use, then how was I able to create the article in the first place? I had to read about their cuisine, culture, clothing, and history. Did you think I just did a CTRL+F for "food", "history", etc.? For the most part, User:Uanfala, in the past, relations between the two of us have been good and I would hate to spoil that. On articles where our edits intersect, we are usually able to form a consensus on the talk page and I'd like to continue to do that. Please honour my admonishment above with regard to the aforementioned policy and I think we can continue about our work. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Anupam, if you have read the article Hindko or its sources, you would have known why it's nonsense to be speaking about Hindkowans of the 11th century. If you see any issues with any particular edit I've made, or edit summary I've used, you can let me know. Now, if you really have access to the sources you cite, then you really should first read them before citing them. As I implied on your talk page, I'm not interested in cleaning up after your edits, but that doesn't mean someone won't do it sooner or later. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have access to the sources that I use, unlike you, who openly admits that you are not. Just on the talk page of the Torwali people, you truncated a quote that User:LearnIndology had to type out in full for others to see the context after you refused to provide it in its entirely. Many of your edits, such as this one dismiss perfectly cited information as "nonsense" because they may conflict with your personal ideology (you have removed in many places anything to do with the pre-Islamic history of northern South Asia). That isn't acceptable on Wikipedia and neither is using misleading edit summaries such as "the statement also appears to be contradicted by the quote". I'm not going to escalate this now but note that I am going to sternly remind you of WP:HOUNDING one more time. As far as your behaviour yesterday and meddling in a bilateral conversation, I do not appreciate it and am firmly telling you not to do it ever again. Thank you, AnupamTalk 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Would you mind keeping conversations in one place, please? I've posted on your talk page and I'm watching it; incidentally, it was Roxy's unusual edit there that drew me to Alexbrn's talk page (which is what you're referring to). – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Uanfala, thank you for replying to my query made at here, though at my personal talk page. You indicate that you "found that article from your contribs" and then happened to open a talk page thread on the most recent edit I made there. Why did you do that? Also, you state that "I haven't look at any other articles there." However, just yesterday you made a sarcastic comment in a bilateral conversation between me another user on his talk page—one with whom you have never interacted with. I wish to assume good faith this time, but I want to inform you of WP:FOLLOWING. I don't want to see this kind of behaviour from you again. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I did the same thing to you. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- u:Uanfala is now following and WP:HOUNDING what I do?[7] This is not acceptable. Stop doing that, I am asking you respectfully. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice try. The article has been on my watchlist for years, and this isn't the first time I've had to clean up after an edit you've made to it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
IP on Azad Kashmir
This guy went on a rampage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I saw the massive copy-editing they did on Neelam Valley yesterday, and it was partially helpful. Are they doing anything disruptive on the other articles? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I couldn't easily separate the disruptive edits from the helpful ones. So I left them alone. But Azad Kashmir has been marked as "dependent territory" everywhere, which is unsourced. The link to Districts of Pakistan was also removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh no: they've been at it again: this time inserting flags into the infoboxes. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's partly because of situations like this that we need a dedicated infobox, either for Kashmir or for Pakistan. Most of this mess wouldn't have happened if we had one. – Uanfala (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I couldn't easily separate the disruptive edits from the helpful ones. So I left them alone. But Azad Kashmir has been marked as "dependent territory" everywhere, which is unsourced. The link to Districts of Pakistan was also removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
For your review
If you get the chance, could you take a look at this? Anything with "undoubtedly" ....!--RegentsPark (comment) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not my area, but I've left a note at Talk:Pashtuns#Linguistic origin. "Undoubtedly" here has just been taken from the source, but yeah, that word is one of the best markers of highly doubtful statements :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Categories
You will detect the irony when I suddenly remember this[8], no? ;) –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, yes: I was thinking of that when filling out those CfD forms, hated every second of it. But unlike, say, Category:Linguists of Chapacuran languages (which is silly, but largely harmless), the two EIr categories can cause trouble. I think something similar can be done about the various subcats of Category:Indo-Aryan languages: nuking the whole rickety structure and leaving the category as a nice flat list. But what little enthusiasm for categories I had today has already evaporated without a trace, so I'm going to leave that for others :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the "Linguists of XXX"-categories can also be source of annoyance when they only contain the worst contributors who just happen to have a WP page, as in the case of Roger Blench, who was the only inhabitant of Category:Linguists of Enggano—btw, thanks to Liz, the category soon was gone after I had depleted it :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blench as a linguist of Enggano, lol! – Uanfala (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the "Linguists of XXX"-categories can also be source of annoyance when they only contain the worst contributors who just happen to have a WP page, as in the case of Roger Blench, who was the only inhabitant of Category:Linguists of Enggano—btw, thanks to Liz, the category soon was gone after I had depleted it :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering, how common is this?[9] (No, not tagging by IPs, but the tagged information.) I have found anecdotical evidence here on p. 43, but is its occurrence above the "speech defect threshold"? –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's strange. True, if you spend any decent length of time in Bulgaria, sooner or later you'll come across someone whose r is guttural. I think this is strictly individual, and it's not more than a few percent of speakers who do that. Sounds like being around the "speech defect" level? I don't think it's any more common in Sofia than elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I wouldn't drop a mention in Waray language#Consonants either just because my mom happens to have this very idiosyncrasy :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah! So you can speak Waray? :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Uhm, between war-1 and war-1.5 maybe. If quizzed, I'd probably do better with Proto-Malayo-Polynesian than with Waray vocabulary. Even my Tagalog isn't as good as it should be. Adult socialization made me much more competent in Indonesian and and a few local languages of Sulawesi. –Austronesier (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah! So you can speak Waray? :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I wouldn't drop a mention in Waray language#Consonants either just because my mom happens to have this very idiosyncrasy :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Uanfala!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
- Happy New Year, Fylindfotberserk! – Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Project
Re: the Arcana disambig page: Please refrain from using the word "project" when referring to a band or album. Do you know where you got that usage? I would like to know. Use "band" for band and "album" for album. Keep it simple. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, this was the text from the earlier version of the dab page: I guess I should have paid more attention and tried to incorporate the intermediate changes. – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
I do not understand, how is WWI (disambiguation) not eligible for speedy deletion? The disambiguation page ends in "(disambiguation)" and only lists one other extant article.
WP:G14 states that "Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page". But okay, I will just nominate the article in WP:PROD.
Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's got two links: to World War I and to Woodie Woodie Airport. The link to the primary topic counts: that's why a page whose title ends in (disambiguation) will be eligible for WP:G14 if it's got one link, in contrast to other dab pages, where the threshold for the number of links is zero. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Sarazi
Hey,
If Sarazi is a language, then it should hopefully have a language code. sira1263 should be it. The dialects listed for a language are often wrong. Really, we shouldn't link to dialect codes at Glottolog. My fault, that. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Glottolog has a "language" called Sirajic, with two "dialects": Rambani and Siraji of Doda. As far as I can remember, Sirajic here is an invention of Glottolog, and the two varieties of Siraji and Rambani, though undoubtedly related, aren't otherwise grouped together. We don't have an article about Rambani (though I've been meaning to create a stub about it), and Sarazi language is about the "Siraji of Doda", without Rambani falling under its scope. The Glottolog entity that matches the scope of the article is "Siraji of Doda", not "Sirajic". – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Usually I ignore the dialect stuff because they're a mirror of MultiTree and so not RS. But it appears in this case that Glottolog did intentionally group these together as one language, which means in their judgement they are mutually intelligible. Anyway, continued below. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol
Two's company, three's a crowd, four's a WikiProject. Sign up if you see fit...
Certes and I crossed paths in 2018, and we ran a campaign on mononymic tsxonomists. We fixed around 1,500 links. It took a fortnight (slow work; a lot of it wasn't easy; I was given the Wikispecies equivalent of WP:AP, because I was being a nuisance). IDK the circumstances, but it looks to me as if Certes and GoingBatty more recently discovered that they were both attacking the same difficult-to-find roll-your-eyes problems. So, I had this Idea for a centralised collaboration, explicitly disconnected from foolishly argued and closed WP:RM/WP:PTOPIC discussions (I could cite at least three major examples without drawing breath). Someone has to pick up the pieces; a WP:MR might be a waste of breath; getting information right is all that matters.
Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Narky Blert, I think this project is a great idea! I don't think I'll have the time to get involved just now, but I've occasionally tried fixing links to dubious primary topics in the past, and I'll probably do so again in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation page sections
Hello. What do you recommend as a title for a disambiguation page section that lists both individual people with the name, and articles about an ethnic group? WP:LONGDAB suggests "People". Or do you think those things should not be in the same section? "People and ethnic groups"? Interested in your opinion, and hope all's well with you, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: The only reason that I can see why someone might want to put individuals and ethnic groups into a single section, is the existence of the two meanings of people: 1) the plural of person; 2) a singular noun meaning 'ethnic group'. I don't think the grouping should entirely hang on the ambiguity of a word, especially when the two categories don't conceptually fit together. Individual persons can be grouped with, say, individual animals, or with fictional individuals; ethnic groups can, in principle, be grouped with other collections of people, like nations, companies or organisations. Still, contexts may vary and if somewhere it's deemed necessary to group these together (say, all the individuals happen to be prominently associated with the ethnic group/s), then the section title should be explicit about what is included. "People and peoples" would be most succinct, but that's confusing, so I'd avoid the word "people" altogether and go for something like "Persons and ethnic groups". And as for WP:LONGDAB this is one editor's essay (it has some good advice, but it's still just an essay); still, it says ethnic groups should be listed separately from individuals, which I take to mean they should go in separate sections. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's helpful. (What's less helpful, I think, is your edit to WP:LONGDAB: as you know, it was labelled as an explanatory supplement until you reclassified yesterday as an essay. The difference is subtle and arguing about it would probably generate more heat than light, and annoy editors more than any utility that might be gained by changing the status quo. I've used WP:BRD but I'd urge you not to further lift the lid on that can of worms, but of course you have the right to do so and you could discuss it on that page's Talk page if you wish). Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not going to insist here. But supplements, whether rightly or not, are commonly regarded as having more weight than essays, and this implies some sort of explicit consensus beyond one editor's self-certification. You'd need consensus for having it, not for removing it, similar to what you'd do with unsourced text in mainspace: that can be removed by default regardless of how long it had managed to survive, and it's keeping it that would require explicit consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's helpful. (What's less helpful, I think, is your edit to WP:LONGDAB: as you know, it was labelled as an explanatory supplement until you reclassified yesterday as an essay. The difference is subtle and arguing about it would probably generate more heat than light, and annoy editors more than any utility that might be gained by changing the status quo. I've used WP:BRD but I'd urge you not to further lift the lid on that can of worms, but of course you have the right to do so and you could discuss it on that page's Talk page if you wish). Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Sirazi
Hi. 'Sirazi of Doda' is a MultiTree classification, not Glottolog, and MultiTree is not a RS. I rv'd that change.
As for Poguli, its ISO name is now Khah. If that's wrong, we should still say why readers are being directed there from that name, and someone will need to submit a change request to ISO. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Poguli now has an article of its own. The name "Siraji of Doda", if I'm not mistaken, goes back to Grierson, and it was coined to distinguish this Siraji (or Sarazi) from the two other dialects with the same name spoken in Himachal. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
That may be, but according to Glottolog, sira1263 is the language, and all the refs on Glottolog apply to this variety, so you're rating your judgement as more reliable than Glottolog's. Unless you'd prefer to create a new Sirazi *language* article, and move this to the Sirazi of Doda dialect of the Sirazi language? — kwami (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Glottolog's "Sirajic" is likely a spurious creation. I don't think there are any sources that lump Sarazi and Rambani together like that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I see now you've created an Rambani language article. That makes a difference.
What we have in Glottolog is that there is a language "Siraji" (Harald changes Arabo-Persian -i to English -ic, which is weird but unimportant) with the sources provided. One of those sources is Kaul (2006). The code sira1263 also covers the language in Parihar & Dwivedi (2019) A Grammar of Sarazi, and, according to the evaluation of Glottolog, that of Bhat (2012) A Morphological Study Of Siraji: Language spoken in Doda District of Jammu and Kashmir. Glottolog evaluated these along with Grierson 1919 and determined that Siraji of Dodi and Rambani were a single language, [sira1263]. That's presumably a judgement of mutual intelligibility.
So you're judging that Glottolog's judgement is wrong. It may be, but have you concluded from Kaul that the languages are not mutually intelligible, or have you just not seen a demonstration that they are mutually intelligible? — kwami (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, we need to link these articles from the family articles. We can add, say, Rambani to Western Pahari per Kaul and to Lahnda per Glottolog, or as unclassified within Indic -- whatever you think the sources best support, but people should be able to find the languages of a family from the article on that family. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no idea if the languages are mutually intelligible – no studies that I know of have been performed on that. But that's beside the point. Whatever the exact relationship between those two varieties, they're always treated as separate entities (whether languages or dialects), and apart from Glottolog, the label Siraji will always refer to only one of them. I don't know if it helps clarify things here, but Sarazi, Siraji and Siraji of Doda are exact synonyms; Glottolog's original step is to group Sarazi and Rambani together and then call this new thing Sarazi. Any instance of Sarazi you may see in the literature will refer to "Sarazi", not to "Sarazi + Rambani". The sources listed by Glottolog are about Sarazi, there hasn't been anything published on Rambani since the LSI, Kaul even conjectures the variety may have gone extinct. Rambani doesn't figure in Parihar and Dwivedi's list of Sarazi dialects, and Kaul also treats the two separately; I haven't seen Bhat's paper. The two varieties are clearly intermediate between Kashmiri and Western Pahari; most of the recent literature appears to place them with the latter, but that's not very rigorous. Kaul, for example, has very detailed enumerations of shared features with Pahari, but he makes no effort in distinguishing shared innovations from shared retentions or likely borrowings. Feel free to mention them in both language group articles, but just not in Lahnda – Glottolog's placement of "Sirajic" under Lahnda is bogus. – Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that makes things much clearer. What of the connection of Poguli to Khah? Is that just nationalism, or do you think there's anything to it? (E.g. Dhar Nazir Ahmed (2013) 'A note on Khah morphology', Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics, U Kashmir, p 111-124.) — kwami (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
My reason for linking to the Khasha was precisely to show that it's a grandiose claim. Why else call it 'Khah'? Do any RS's call it Khah, or was ISO duped?
If 'Khah' is not used by RS's, we probably shouldn't have it in the lead.
Also, if 'Panchali' is not the same thing, please revert me. I just noticed that most of the sources used for the ISO request were for 'Panchali'. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- And there's also this by the same person that asked for the new ISO code. If I remember correctly, the claim is that "Khah" has currency among the speakers themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if a popular local name might have been missed in previous studies. It's not very far-fetched either, as there are well-attested names in the region that look similar – there's Khashali to east, and Khāṣi to the west. Though if it's just the promoters of the language that are using the term, and no-one else has mentioned it yet, then maybe you're right and we should not use it in the lead. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like he's claiming Sirazi and Rambani as dialects, and that's implicit in the ISO acceptance. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Minas
Are you a Tolkien fan?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Move history tool
Hi, remember this discussion at VPT? Well I just made that tool I wanted: User:Nardog/MoveHistory. It's been my most popular script so far, which was unexpected. It should probably be a PHP tool hosted on Toolforge rather than a client-side script, but I don't quite know how to do that yet. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Nardog (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, this is such a handy tool. Good job! – Uanfala (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding recent behavior
Hello, Do you have an RS that states that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th Century? NightWolf1223 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's about this, right? I'm really not sure what to make of your question. Are you suggesting that there is any legitimate doubt that the Book of Mormon was not composed in the 19th century but actually dates back to four millennia ago? If so, then the whole article would need to be rewritten, with RS showing that the text was indeed created between 2200 BC to AD 421. Articles about sacred texts – and I'm not sure this really needs pointing out – are not written from the perspective of the religious communities for whom these texts are sacred, but have to follow the same standards as everything else on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: I have decided, due to WP:NOTTRUTH, I will be leaving it here. I will poke around, but I would rather it be slightly incorrect rather than be blocked for edit warring. Thank you for your comments.
Sincerely, NightWolf1223 01:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I won't have very strong objections to that field getting removed entirely, although the information is probably of relevance to many readers and there's the expectation that it should be there (slightly under two thirds of the articles that use the infobox have that filled in). – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that I can't find an RS for either side. What I'm thinking is put my version but then insert a note down at the bottom explaining the controversy at the bottom of the page. Let me know what you think. NightWolf1223 03:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any real controversy to speak of: this is one of those frequent situations where members of one community have a certain view, while everybody else share another. We can't present the insiders' viewpoint as though it was objective. You can see how this is done in other articles: Book of Genesis doesn't claim the text was actually written in the second millennium BC, nor does Rigveda dedicate any space to the idea that it has existed for eternity. The only possible compromise I see here is to just remove that piece of information from the infobox – readers will still be easily able to draw their conclusions from the article's lead. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that I can't find an RS for either side. What I'm thinking is put my version but then insert a note down at the bottom explaining the controversy at the bottom of the page. Let me know what you think. NightWolf1223 03:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Please accept this as an apology. NightWolf1223 03:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
- No problem. I'm sorry if I came across as abrupt. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Saraiki
Man i want to talk to you about article Saraiki Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqmerani (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free, Siddiqmerani, though Talk:Saraiki language might be a better place. I don't know if this is relevant, but the edit that emphasised the dialect viewpoint has already been reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are you deleting all the dialects of Punjabi? Punjab means land of 5 rivers and Punjabi means language of 5 rivers. Saraiki/Multani is spoken on the land of Punjab so it is part of Punjabi language family. Multani is a sweet language but it is part of Punjabi language family.
You Multanis are free to develop your language but do not mess with other dialects or I might have to take action against you for trying to hide Punjabi dialects. Wikisuperman07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuperman007 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikisuperman007, the relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: we follow what reliable, linguistically-informed, sources do. We don't adopt the Punjabi (ethnonationalist) viewpoint any more than we adopt the Saraiki one – your edits insisting that Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi get reverted, but so do the edits of those who present it as more ancient than Punjabi or those who claim it's spoken by as many as 50 million people. Much of the treatment of this topic was agreed after long discussions in 2016–2017: you can browse the archives of Talk:Saraiki language. As for the removal of the section on dialects, the reasons are explained at Talk:Punjabi language#Dialects section. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Fix ping to Wikisuperman007. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
reversion of my edits on Template:Afroasiatic languages
The reason I greatly expanded {{Afroasiatic languages}} is so that one can navigate articles of different Afroasiatic languages using just one template. The idea is that the templates {{Berber languages}}, {{Biu–Mandara languages}}, {{Cushitic languages}}, {{East Chadic languages}}, {{Masa languages}}, {{Omotic languages}}, {{Semitic languages}} and {{West Chadic languages}} would be gradually merged into {{Afroasiatic languages}} and replaced with different selected parameters on different articles. Why are other big templates allowed, like {{Austronesian languages}} and {{COVID-19 pandemic}} but not this one? -- PK2 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- The point of a navbox is to provide easy navigation to related articles: a readers who's at the page about one language will have a glance at the navbox, see where the current article is located (that's easy because of the bolding), and navigate to the languages that are most closely related. That becomes much more difficult when the navbox presents you with the titles of several collapsed sections, and the reader will have to know where exactly the language stands in the classification scheme before being able to locate the languages closest to it. I don't know if having a one-top way of navigating to all languages in a massive group like Afroasiatic is desirable, but if it is, then that's probably better done not at the bottom of each and every Afroasiatic article but in a separate list. And there's the consideration of size: a navbox with 600 entries is comparable in text length and in html size to a decently developed article, and it's bigger than most existing articles (and with such big templates around, navboxes will probably never get enabled in mobile view). {{Austronesian languages}} is a monstrosity, and I would fully support splitting it into smaller templates. You can see Template talk:Indo-Iranian languages#Split template for a discussion of a similar case. You mention the idea of having a master template with different selected parameters in each article. I'm not sure I can picture that, would you be able to elaborate? And one more thing: when making a large-scale change, it's usually better to not do it boldly, but propose it first and go ahead only if there's support – that way you won't risk spending time on something that eventually gets reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here is an example of a template using a selected parameter:
- above, the 'Cattle' or 'R.' group in {{British Isles livestock}} is expanded while the other groups are collapsed. -- PK2 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. This takes away one of the two main concerns I expressed above. The other one – size – remains, so I still don't believe the change would be an improvement. You can still propose it and see what others think: this is best done by making a proposal on the template's talk page and leaving notices on the talk pages of the templates that you believe should be superseded. If you'd like to draw a larger crowd, you can also post a notice on WT:LANG. If you'd prefer a formal discussion instead, then you can nominate the templates for merging, see WP:TFDHOW. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- The main difference between {{Afroasiatic languages}} and {{Austronesian languages}} is that you can easily split the former while fully maintaining NPOV, while this is almost impossible to do so for the latter. Only Malayo-Polynesian (MP) and within MP, only Oceanic are generally accepted large units, apart from this, we have a lot of relatively compact subgroups of MP. The larger internal structure of MP remains debated (btw, I hope I can add to the "confusion" by publishing a paper this year presenting yet another subgrouping proposal). –Austronesier (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- It seems that most of the Austronesian language articles, whether in observance of NPOV or not, don't use the big navbox but instead have one or another of the smaller templates. – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- The main difference between {{Afroasiatic languages}} and {{Austronesian languages}} is that you can easily split the former while fully maintaining NPOV, while this is almost impossible to do so for the latter. Only Malayo-Polynesian (MP) and within MP, only Oceanic are generally accepted large units, apart from this, we have a lot of relatively compact subgroups of MP. The larger internal structure of MP remains debated (btw, I hope I can add to the "confusion" by publishing a paper this year presenting yet another subgrouping proposal). –Austronesier (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. This takes away one of the two main concerns I expressed above. The other one – size – remains, so I still don't believe the change would be an improvement. You can still propose it and see what others think: this is best done by making a proposal on the template's talk page and leaving notices on the talk pages of the templates that you believe should be superseded. If you'd like to draw a larger crowd, you can also post a notice on WT:LANG. If you'd prefer a formal discussion instead, then you can nominate the templates for merging, see WP:TFDHOW. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- above, the 'Cattle' or 'R.' group in {{British Isles livestock}} is expanded while the other groups are collapsed. -- PK2 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Question from a dummy: can I directly embed a low-order template (like Template:Philippine languages) in a higher-order template (like Template:Austronesian languages), or does that require a third template that only contains the shared part of the code? This won't make Template:Austronesian languages less monstrous, but it can help to synchonize data. I would like to create templates for Celebic and South Sulawesi, two accepted and rather large/structured subgroups, but I want to see first if there's a way to avoid redundancies. –Austronesier (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- You can directly plug the daughter template, like here, but this results in a duplicated header.
Alternatively, there should be a way to select a specific portion of the daughter template's code to embed in the parent template using labelled section transclusion.There may be other ways I don't know of (I don't do navboxes much), so maybe worth asking at Template talk:Navbox? – Uanfala (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)- Great, thank you! I'll experiment with labelled section transclusion. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Guenoa (disambiguation) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guenoa (disambiguation) 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.
Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Reversion of PROD
- Your reversion of the prod placed on Vimlanand Saraswati asks if I checked the references on the page.
- The reply is yes, I checked all the ISBN links, none of which were found on Google Books. I also checked the programmable search engine we use on AfD.
- Your reversion and reply is pre-emptive. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, in that case my comment should have been less acerbic, so I apologise. But Google Books's coverage is not universal, and it's particularly thin on the ground in this topic area. (This particular book exists, btw, and is even available online.) Generally, when making decisions about notability on India-related humanities subjects, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the literature is offline, it's most likely to be in a language other than in English, and the little that exists in English may use a different transliteration of the name. – Uanfala (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)