Llonydd
Removed tag
editCould you please explain why you removed the citations needed tag I placed on the Khwarshi language page? As it stands now, the vowels and consonants sections are completely lacking in citations. These must be added to establish verifiability of the content. --JorisvS (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm new to this. I thought it would be enough to cite the source in the introduction of the description of the phonology, as the description of the phonology includes both the vowels and consonants. Would it be better, if the source was made a "general reference" in the bottom, so that I don't need to cite everything - as it is from the same source anyway... -- Llonydd (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no hard feelings for being new. It´s okay to cite your source once when this source is used in the entire section. However, as it stands now, it is not made clear that this is the case. At the moment it appears that the source is only used for the preceding paragraph (or sentence). A bit of simple rephrasing would then do the trick. I must say I don´t like general references very much, as the source of specific information in the text would then be unclear.
- Do you have that Grammar of Khwarshi book? It would then be great if you could add something about the grammar proper. Furthermore, the sentence ″Gemination is present in Khwarshi.″ is rather vague. It should be nice if (you) could specify what this really means, e.g. what consonants can be geminated and the like. --JorisvS (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for you answer! I understand what you are saying, but I still find it hard to rephrase it like you say. In general, when writing Wikipedia articles, I prefer only to cite works in the notes, and not in the text itself, so I can't really think of a way of doing it I'm afraid. And yes, I'm in possession of the book, and I've been planning to do some work on the article, including the things you mentioned. I will do it in the very near future! -- Llonydd (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I´ll do the rephrasing for you, no problem. You may want to read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations and Wikipedia:Verifiability, maybe it´ll get a bit clearer why we cite sources inline (and why I dislike general references). If you don´t know how to make the reference show up like everywhere, don´t worry about it, we (other Wikipedians) can do that for you. In-line you just put the author name, year of publication and page number between brackets and we´ll do the rest for you.--JorisvS (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I will look at it all once I get some time on my hands and before I make a contribution again. -- Llonydd (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I´ll do the rephrasing for you, no problem. You may want to read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations and Wikipedia:Verifiability, maybe it´ll get a bit clearer why we cite sources inline (and why I dislike general references). If you don´t know how to make the reference show up like everywhere, don´t worry about it, we (other Wikipedians) can do that for you. In-line you just put the author name, year of publication and page number between brackets and we´ll do the rest for you.--JorisvS (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for you answer! I understand what you are saying, but I still find it hard to rephrase it like you say. In general, when writing Wikipedia articles, I prefer only to cite works in the notes, and not in the text itself, so I can't really think of a way of doing it I'm afraid. And yes, I'm in possession of the book, and I've been planning to do some work on the article, including the things you mentioned. I will do it in the very near future! -- Llonydd (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no hard feelings for being new. It´s okay to cite your source once when this source is used in the entire section. However, as it stands now, it is not made clear that this is the case. At the moment it appears that the source is only used for the preceding paragraph (or sentence). A bit of simple rephrasing would then do the trick. I must say I don´t like general references very much, as the source of specific information in the text would then be unclear.
You might want to hear that already posted a reply on your question on my talk page;). --JorisvS (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Was the link I added to the Grammar of Khwarshi ref the same you're using? --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the one. I would have added a link myself, but I couldn't remember where I had found it, so thank you. I saw you had added some other papers as well, great! -- Llonydd (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- A few secs of googling and I found them, so, my pleasure. --JorisvS (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
/tʷ/ in Khwarshi
editHello again. Have you seen in Khalilova's thesis that though she says there is no /tʷ/ phoneme in Khwarshi (page 17), she immediately gives a minimal pair on page 18 (/etʷa/ ‘fly’, /eta/ ‘touch’)? --JorisvS (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, I hadn't seen that before, but I now see you are right. I find it a bit odd though, as she says, in the same section on labialized consonants, that "[t]he labialized consonants can be found among dental consonants, but there are no instances of a labialized dental non-ejective /t/" and yet she gives the example you mentioned. The only instances of /tʷ/ I have been able to find is that in /etʷa/ and that in the verb-stem /etʷ-/ (also, "fly"), on page 181, so it seems like that's the only word having the sound in all of her paper. Perhaps we shouldn't include the sound - I'm not sure? We could also choose to say that it's unclear whether the sound is present or not. -- Llonydd (talk)
- Yes, well, I wasn't really sure what to make of it, so I thought I'd talk to you first. Anyways, in the phonology table on the Archi page I included all the sounds I could find and colored the more 'special' cases. It is an option to include a /tʷ/ and then say that Khalilova didn't include this sound in her table and that it only appears in one stem in her entire thesis. After all, that is the truth. --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, I believe that would be the best way to do it! -- Llonydd (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I wasn't really sure what to make of it, so I thought I'd talk to you first. Anyways, in the phonology table on the Archi page I included all the sounds I could find and colored the more 'special' cases. It is an option to include a /tʷ/ and then say that Khalilova didn't include this sound in her table and that it only appears in one stem in her entire thesis. After all, that is the truth. --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Bling
edit
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your work filling in redlinks related to Uyghur language. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
Request for comment
editHi Llonydd. I remember that you have been quite active on the Uyghur language article, and if you're interested in Uyghur issues I'd like to invite you to offer comments or suggestions on the featured article review of July 2009 Ürümqi riots, located here. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
editHello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in (small) languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:West Barkly languages
edit
A tag has been placed on Category:West Barkly languages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The article Amerindios (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NALBUM
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)