Talk:Belén Barenys

IPA transcription

I don't wish to write any opening salvo on this matter, but am leaving a neutral comment for this article because AFAIK there aren't any audio-video clips of the subject's name being said. If practical knowledge won't be accepted, then, referring to the Lists of spelling-to-sound correspondences in Catalan may be a point of reference for this one. Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sol505000: I am disappointed you have not started discussion. I will give you opportunity to do so before reinstating status quo (as minimal as it would be at this article, hence I am mentioning it here) - this per WP:BRD: you were bold in changing the content. Tangentially, I would also like to know why you still have not wanted to discuss when given the opportunity while article content was locked. Kingsif (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Everything is in the edit summaries. There's no point in me repeating myself. Sol505000 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sol505000: Respectfully, your edit summaries are little more than saying what you've changed, saying those changes are correct, and insulting people who disagree. And even if you were clear as day, there is always reason to discuss. Even if you 100% believe you are correct, first, Wikipedia is collaborative, you can never just say "I'm correct so it's a waste of time to talk", as has been your attitude. Perhaps more productively, though, by discussing content with users who disagree, are unconvinced, or who may seem to you to just not understand, you are doing two things: 1. getting on the same page as those users, so maybe you can explain to them your reasons and they'll understand, and there'll be no more editing tension, and 2. leaving a public record that the matter has been discussed that can be referred back to if tension arises in future or if future editors want to understand changes made. Kingsif (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you still haven't addressed those edit summaries here. If you have a valid rebuttal then post it here. If not, let's end this. Sol505000 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The ONUS for discussion is on you, per BRD, but fine. Your edit reasons say nothing more than insisting you are correct. I disagree. At this article, specifically, your edits all rely on there being emphasis on the final syllable of the surname, which is not the case. With this in mind, please justify your changes. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There's more to my edits than that. If you insist that your IPA transcription is correct you must know why, so tell us why. Here (35th second), the stress is clearly final in both the first name and the surname. Sol505000 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously still refusing to give reason? As I said, there is no emphasis on the final syllable of the surname. The only difference in our transcriptions revolves around this. You adding emphasis and changing the vowel sounds to match, is incorrect. This is me telling you why your changes are incorrect, with the previous version correct. Now tell me why you think otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this will cause an edit conflict; I see you've added a link. I don't know what to tell you, but I don't hear emphasis on the final syllable. In the first name, yes, but it actually sounds more on the first syllable in the surname (when I would say it with no emphasis). Seriously, this isn't me just wanting to disagree. It seems to have emphasis on the 'a' (and it is indeed an 'a' sound). I would ask that other people listen to give their view. Kingsif (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why /n/ becomes [m] and not [ɱ] before /b/? Because [m] shares the same place of articulation as [b]. Note 6 in the Help:IPA/Catalan guide you claim to have read. You can't have an [ɱ] before a non-labiodental consonant in Catalan, or in most languages for that matter.

Or why [a] is banned in the unstressed position? Because it's Eastern Catalan and that's how vowel reduction works in that variety. When the vowel is spelled ⟨a⟩, only [ə] appears in that position, to the exclusion of [a]. Note 11 in the guide. This [ə] is closer to [ɐ] in the Barcelona metropolitan area but it's still not [ä]. The local Catalan pronunciation of Barcelona is [bɐɾsɐˈlonɐ], sounding almost like Barsalona in Spanish.

Or why no [z] can appear in the word-final position unless a vowel or a voiced consonant follows? Because Catalan features final-obstruent devoicing. Note 1 in the guide.

Again, given the fact you were edit warring over this, you should know that already. Sol505000 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

First, I wasn't edit warring. You were: I tried to bring discussion, I wasn't just fighting, but you ignored this and kept restoring your preferred version. Let's get the understanding of what constitutes a conflict and warring right before you continue trying to shrug me off through such accusations (a poor form of 'argument' even if it was correct). Now, it's been a while but I put in edit reason what I was contesting, so it looks like that was the 'a' and the 'z', hmm.

On the first sound, I refer back to the video you helpfully provided regarding the stress for the 'a' (and how it actually sounds). We are not going to agree on the stress, 3O will be required for this.

On the second, I tried to explain that yes, Catalan very notably features devoicing at the end of words, but because extra effort is needed to sound the combination of "ny s" in practice (or because it isn't stressed in theory I believe), this isn't a 100% rule.

Thank you for putting some thought into explanation; since it relies on the stress placement (that we don't agree on) and then basically a textbook guide (that I find rarely covers exceptions and is insufficient for individual names anyway), if you're sticking by it, we're at an impasse. I suggest that you follow that link above to a friendly form of dispute resolution, and probably comment out the contested text for now. Kingsif (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As no progress has been made on this, I am going to remove the transcription. I've used the reply function so hopefully this notification finds you. What may be useful for further discussion, should you pursue it, is reference to the Barcelona-area towns of Arenys de Munt and Arenys de Mar (comparable in pronunciation, as you can imagine). Kingsif (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

When the article was mere hours old when the bold edit was made and all revisions up to that point were made by a sole contributor, I'm not sure if you can call the previous state "the status quo". I'd consider the default to instate in case no consensus is reached to be removal of the transcription. Nardog (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: I did say status quo here would be minimal; my comment above refers to this article as well as Yulimar Rojas and María León (actress) - perhaps I should have linked them all. As I said, I left the note here because I feel an edit reason of "BRD: R to status quo pending discussion" would suffice at the other two articles, but less likely here. Ultimately, since Sol505000 accepted that they had only edited this article as a means of harassing me, I would have also submitted that as a reason for R pending discussion, but if removal is a compromise I would support it.
Anyway, I'm happy you're here, too; I don't know if you follow this page or were asked to join in, but can I make some general statements on my attempt-to-discuss experience, and some suggestions? To put it succinctly without trying to be rude, it's clear you're both editors from (again, I say for brevity) an IPA cabal. Having looked over Sol505000's talkpage when I tried to discuss there, I saw a common theme of users on the outside of your group taking issue with either edits or how they were made, and these issues being brushed off. Having also been pushed to discuss an article-level issue not at its talkpage; a relevant WikiProject; or even a noticeboard for community consensus-building like Village Pump, but instead at an obscure IPA scheme help talkpage (non-intuitive for experienced users, nigh-impossible to find for rookies), I worry that this IPA cabal are, while clearly with the intention to improve the encyclopedia, being very selective and shady in how you discuss things. Intentional or not, it feels exclusionary. Then there comes the times when other editors take issue, and editors either refuse to explain or just say that it's been discussed, even if such discussion was effectively internal. My suggestion would just be to communicate better, it should see a lot less resistance.
I also recall that on more than one occasion, other editors' IPA additions at Juan Guaidó have come under contention; the first time because a Spanish-speaking user asked me to help find out what the issue was, and I don't know the details of other times but (again through attempting to communicate) saw Sol505000 recently sparring over it. I believe the first time the issue was the style guide had changed a symbol, but this was not explained when editing the article, and I had to go to an obscure talkpage to find where it had been decided to do so. Presumably, the style guide has been changed again, and the IP that was reverting recently was perhaps defending the previous version instituted by the IPA cabal. In both these cases, I think that either holding the discussion in a much more public forum, or at least having updates be pinned at the top of users' watchlists like other important MOS changes (preferably both), would make this element of updating go more smoothly. Kingsif (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned on User talk:Daniel Case, you're again posting a wall of text about user conduct on a talk page about encyclopedic content, which is seldom productive. Stick to the content. Nardog (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You say "again" when this hasn't happened before. I took the opportunity, for the first time at an article talkpage, to make honest suggestions about you and your mates being open to communication to try and make things go smoother. I'm sure you can continue just ignoring resistance and waiting for objectors to become ill from trying to deal with you all, but that is what's not productive. If you're here about content, say something about the content, if not, stop appearing just to try bully me away from demanding accountability of your mate. Kingsif (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Look, if there is a place you think is better suited to these suggestions, I'd love to move them there. But, as the wall of text notes, it's very hard to pin down where you guys like to have your discussions. Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Belén Barenys and Berta Prieto's short film was picked up by Filmin after they suggested this on Instagram? Source: https://www.elmundo.es/cultura/2022/11/21/637a2b3bfc6c83d27c8b459e.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Withers

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Belén Barenys; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough and long enough. QPQ present. No textual concerns. Everything checks out, but the hook needs an 0a for idiomatic wording (the "this" doesn't quite fit). Something like...Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT0a: ... that Belén Barenys and Berta Prieto's short film was picked up by Filmin after they suggested the idea on Instagram?

• @Sammi Brie: Thanks; I'd toyed with the wording in 0a, but felt that it created ambiguity - that they may have suggested the idea for the film, not the idea that the pre-existing film should be picked up. Perhaps "suggested as such" is an improvement on both? Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Reviewing for promotion. Just mentioning that you saved the QPQ for 2.5 years. Bruxton (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, and it's one of several dozen (if not more) long-unreviewed noms that I completed in 2020-21, creating something of a backlog where my reviews far outweigh my noms. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)