User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Draft Submission

{{Ping|Largoplazo}}

I'm new to editing, so I was not intending on resubmitting without edits. It appears the merge did not work appropriately. The updated submission is in. Apologies. Sabanas1987 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎User changing settlement-type to "Capital city": Moxy🍁 06:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

reverts regarding 'w' vs 'u̯'

"It's a diphthong, calling for /w/" No, it's a diphthong, calling for an asyllabic vowel. Most of the instances I see of 'w' and 'j' at the end of a syllable should actually be asyllabic vowels, which are different from semivowels; in fact, portuguese doesn't even have semivowels, nor does spanish (not at the end of a syllable at least) Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sérgio R R Santos: Are you talking phonetically or phonemically? The Help pages given the conventions that are recommended for use on Wikipedia, which are meant to be somewhat generic. Consistency is a good thing. Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of portuguese, semivowels don't occur in my language at any level. The reason the symbols "w" and "j" keep beeing used by linguists to describe portuguese phonology is because they don't understand the diference between asyllabic vowels and semivowels; it took myself a long time too to understand the difference, but it's quite simple: semivowels ( 'w', 'j', and 'ɥ'), in languages that have them, behave phonemecaly like consonants while asyllabic vowels (u̯ i̯ y̯) behave phonemicaly like vowels. For instance, the portuguese word 'pai' (father) is pronounced [pai̯] and not [paj], that's how the french word 'paille' is pronounced. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's very funny, both the notion that linguists, of all people, the people whose job it is to understand these things, and who are trained to do so, don't understand a concept from the field of linguistics and the concept that native speakers of a language are more likely to understand its phonology than linguists who study it from a linguistic perspective do.

Be that as it may, I'm not doubting what you say as to what the actual phonemes or their realizations are. However, it's been my understanding that the motivation here is to keep the representation simple, avoiding symbols with less-known diacritics like u̯ i̯ y̯, unless a given language has both features and needs separate representation for them. Also, I see my premise was correct only for English: at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, it says that for languages other than English, phonetic transcription is normally used.

I'm not going to pursue it if you change it back, but in case anyone else takes issue with your version, it might be worthwhile to see if it's been discussed before at the talk pages of any of the pages I've linked to. Largoplazo (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is funny that professional linguists fail to understand some simple concepts of phonology, like the distincion between vowels and semivowels, as opposed to a guy like me who learned about it on wikipedia. The way you phrased it makes me think that you find me a bit arrogant and that i think i know better than linguists; however, linguistics, and phonology in particular, is not rocket science. We're not talking about surgery or astrophysycs, like i said i learned it through wikipedia (over a few years) - in fact, if it wasn't for wikipedia i don' know if i would ever get interested in linguistics. And yes, being a native speaker of a language gives you a significative advantage in describing said language provided you have at least some decent knowledge of linguistics.

Regarding "avoiding symbols with less-known diacritics like u̯ i̯ y̯", you could argue that most IPA symbols are unknown to most people, so, there's that.

"unless a given language has both features and needs separate representation for them" - well, english just happens to be one of those languages.

Regarding your last point i will check those pages and probably will have to start the discussion myself.

To finish, i don't think that symbols like u̯ i̯ are particularly "less-known" or difficult to understand, since they are regularly used in the description of english, so if you don't mind i'd like to revert your changes

Cheers. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

When I said it was funny, I meant it was absurd for you to think that. Who other than linguists do you think developed these concepts so that Wikipedia could report them? Who do you think wrote the works that Wikipedia cites to support them? Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read anything I wrote besides that? You are talking about the general history of linguistics (of which I made no mention), and I agree with what said about that; what I'm talking about is the correct phonetic description of a specific language. I mean, what's even the point of coming up with a whole phonetic alphabet with specific symbols for each sound, and then not use it properly? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

Dear Largoplazo, I need a third opinion on a subject, discussed on my talk page: Strict logic offers a new perspective. In fact, it comes up with new solutions. It focus on the principle if identity and the principle of limitation. Its goal is a whole new logic, without antonomies and paradoxies. It can help readers to understand reality. Over many years of experience it paves a new way to reach problems. Experts on the field noticed a lack in other logical theories. Using this emerging theory will disrupt old ideas. It paves the way of a whole new understanding. Greetings, 123qweasd (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@123qweasd: How would I be the source of a third opinion when I'm the one who proposed deleting the article? My original opinion was "Non-notable theory from a non-notable book by a person who may not be notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, with no suitable coverage found via Google." Wikipedia isn't a forum for proposing new theories, regardless of the merit someone considers them to have. It's for presenting solid information on topics that are deemed notable. In the case of a theory, this would mean having received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. But i think, i tried my best. Obviously reading the version of syllogism is too much asked for. (As relating to the subject, is a minimum aquirement of every information) 123qweasd (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• requirement not aquirement

123qweasd (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Opinion on this new article I came across

Hi Largoplaza, I was browsing Special:NewPagesFeed and came across this new article Pini Althaus. I'm almost certain it's some sort of promotional article but I can't really tell why. The whole thing seems kinda wordy and I can't seem to grasp exactly who this article is about, what it is they do or why they're notable. Just came across your telltale signs of candidates for deletion and thought to stop by and ask for your opinion on this. One of your signs is ... over X years of experience ...- well, the Pini Althaus article has that in the first line! Any ideas? Thanks Limmidy (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Limmidy: Hi, I took a look at it and found that someone's already done what I would have done: marked it as promotional and moved it to draft space at Draft:Pini Althaus. The person does seem to be notable, so it would be reasonable to have a neutral article about the person, but not a glorification like that on! I appreciate your referencing my rules of thumb. I should add a Biography section that makes heavy use of "under his leadership", "during his tenure", etc., attempting to cast every achievement by an organization as a direct accomplishment of the article's subject. Largoplazo (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Hahaha so glad I reached out! Thank you. Limmidy (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me create a new article ?

I have some questions about creating a new article, send me your email Zayn Hesham (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal details on Talk:Mauritius

Hi Largoplazo, just thought I'd doublecheck if you actually do want to put all that personal information on Talk:Mauritius. You don't seem to have it on your user page, and article talkpages feel qualitatively more public than userspace or Wikipedia space. Best, CMD (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I appreciate the note. Yeah, my intent was to supply the background that Varoon and I had already had a discussion and that I'd laid out my reasoning. I'm not so concerned from a privacy standpoint but even so the amount of that discussion that isn't on-point would distract from the core points so it's a well that I don't direct attention to the whole conversation. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcome-he-wiki

Template:Welcome-he-wiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frostly (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit I reverted

Do we consider [1] to be vandalism? They're a wikiEdu student. Should someone bring that edit up to them, or should we assume good faith and not do anything? I'm asking here rather than on the talk page since I don't want to insult the editor unnecessarily. McYeee (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Especially considering the amount of effort (number of edits) they spent tailoring the language, I don't see it as anything as other than a good-faith contribution. Why do you think it's vandalism? Of course, you were correct to remove it because (a) it's a misstatement of what the cited source says, and (b) the inhabitants before the arrival of Catholics obviously didn't give those places Catholic names they couldn't possibly have been aware of. I don't think you have to go beyond your edit summary, but, since they cited the source, which might seem to them to legitimize their contribution and which you didn't address, it wouldn't be uncourteous of you to elaborate on your reasoning on their own talk page that what they wrote misrepresented that source. Use your judgement. I don't usually do that when I remove something with what I consider a reasonable and adequate explanation in my edit summary but sometimes it seems like a fair thing to do. Largoplazo (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right that it is good faith. That sentence just looked so obviously wrong to me that I found it hard to assume good faith but, now that you ask, I realize that for someone who hasn't spent 20 years in Ventura county, "venturano" is probably not an obvious Spanish-Language reference to Saint Bonaventure. Thanks for your time, and I'll make sure to assume good faith next time. I won't say anything on the talk page unless it gets added back; I should probably get back to real life obligations. McYeee (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The King Queen

FYI re here you are stepping into a nationalistic linguistic minefield, she is often called King because in the Georgian language she was called the equivalent of King not Queen to bolster her legitimacy. There is probably some difference in nuance around the words in the different languages. CMD (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting context, thanks. Whereas in English, in fact, we distinguish queen consort from queen regnant. That being the case, I wonder whether (do you know?) Georgians refer to Victoria or either Elizabeth using their word for "king". Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Largoplazo (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the English terms are logical mind. I don't know the answer to your question, but at a quick look I don't see the word in the lead of ka:ელისაბედ II or ka:ვიქტორია (გაერთიანებული სამეფო), but it does appear on ka:ედუარდ VII. CMD (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Plural form in foods (important)

Hi, if you think that the pages crostini, grissini, panzerotti, pizzelle, salami, spumoni, and zeppole (and perhaps also biscotti) are grammatically incorrect regarding the plural/singular, could you please correct them all? I'm not a native English speaker. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Your claim about Turkish delight"

It is supported by thousands of sources that Turkish delight was made during the Ottoman period. But the source you provided is an ordinary site, not a valid book. Everyone can share an ordinary site as they wish, but Wikipedia does not accept such sites as a source. Wikipedia is based on valid articles. As someone like you who has contributed so much to Wikipedia, I expected you to be honest unfortunately. Tutsens Woman (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tutsens Woman: I have no idea what you're talking about. Re "Your claim about Turkish delight", I've made no claims about Turkish delight. All I did was revert edis by an editor whose explanation, "The article doesn’t even mention lokum", was false because "lokum" is the fourth word of the article, which indicated that that editor's basis for removing the information was invalid. And how dare you suggest that I'm being dishonest? Read WP:CIVIL and don't talk to other editors like that without good justification. Largoplazo (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right about that, but that article was taken from an ordinary site, so it has no validity. I can create a normal blog and talk about it as much as I want, but that can't be held to the same level as a valid article. If you look at the source of that article you will agree with me. Tutsens Woman (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tutsens Woman: I'm a little confused. You continue to talk about something I haven't even mentioned—a source—and that I still have nothing to say about, while making no comment on my first response to you other than "You are right about that", unclear as to which comment of mine you're referring to as "that". I'm reading the entirety of it as "You're right, I insulted you, but here's my justification for doing so." If it was meant to be an apology, you should know that it doesn't look anything like one. Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no point in trying to look like an angel. I didn't insult you, I just said that you are not honest because you support (reverting what he wrote) the person who created fake sources (go and look at the other source that the editor wrote, he shared the source from the blog page called Greek Reporter). I mentioned the point you are right about because no one can insult another person. But there is a fine line between criticism and insult. Tutsens Woman (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tutsens woman: Calling someone dishonest who hasn't even made an assertion, let alone a dishonest one, is an insult. That's like telling someone they're an asshole and then insisting it isn't an insult even though they had done nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be called that. The attitude you're showing here needs an adjustment. Largoplazo (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Jennifer (given name)

You removed edits to this article that included properly cited information taken from a scholarly journal and a mainstream news article. Please do not delete cited information. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bookworm857158367: Did you notice my comment at all? For example, the part about the source stating that the claim is probably incorrect? Surely you don't think that when a source says "Some people think X but X is probably incorrect", it doesn't follow that Wikipedia should present X as the truth. And neither source says that the state of affairs in 1966 was influenced by films that didn't come out until 1967 and 1970. Largoplazo (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they said they might have had some influence. Other sources list Love Story as the reason for why the name took off and stayed at No. 1 so long, while Evans mentions Valley of the Dolls. Others mention that songs like Jennifer Eccles (1968) and Jennifer Juniper (1968) were also in the ether in the late 60s. The name rose from 10th in 1967 to 4th in 1968 to 3rd in 1969 to 1st in 1970. All of those influences combined contributed to its popularity. That article still needs significant work to make it clear and readable, which I can do as I find more time. I’d like to break up the list of Jennifers into sections to make it easier to read. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Whether you think it makes sense or not to do it this way, this is what the source says."

Ironic, considering you have erased just few hours ago the mention that Spain is regarded as a cultural superpower (something obvious btw), even though the source explicitly and verbatim stated exactly that, lmao

I love how obvious your intentions are—at least try to be more discreet next time, damn it! Hahahaha

PD: Change your anti-virus or learn basic PC/Informatic tools. Nocceta (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nocceta: I removed it for the reason I gave, that there was a consensus against it, and I'm not interested in any stories you make up about what you imagine my intentions to be nor about your self-serving interpretation that there was any agreement that a source would get you by. Also, there's something about reverting edits by people who are currently blocked, which I believe you to be. You can look at the sockpuppet investigation and chime in if you'd like. Finally, if by any chance you removed those statistics to make a point, see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Largoplazo (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Bengali translations

Why should this be removed? Parts of Bangladesh is patriarchal, especially in rural areas and purdah is used otherwise domestic abuse occurs and the article clearly says it. Bangladesh speaks Bengali obviously. I used Google Translate and the spelling is correct. 103.147.24.243 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence isn't explaining where purdah is found, it's explaining where English got the word from. There could be a hundred languages throughout South Asia that use a word similar to "purdah" for the same practice, but English didn't get the word from all of them.

Google Translate isn't a reliable source for anything. You can often stick misspellings in there and it will translate them based on some word spelled similarly. If you go to the corresponding article on Bengali Wikipedia, you'll see that it's পর্দা. Largoplazo (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Israel talk

I understand you feel strongly about the change I proposed. I hope the community can come to a consensus that reflects the terminology used in RSs. The change concerns very nuanced grammar usage and I understand that the difference may seem negligible.

I just wanted to take a second to explain that I proposed the change in good faith based on my understanding of English grammar and how the term is most commonly presented in reliable sources. I think your disagreement with the grammar-based change is in good faith, but I do take issue with part of your most recent comment, “Also, it wouldn't be surprising for a blind person, upon having received an explanation of something, to reply "I see."” I think this approaches a WP:PA, mainly because of the pejorative use of ‘blind’. Blindness is a disability, WP has blind users.

We both have a goal of improving WP and I’m thankful for your continued contributions. Mikewem (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand most of your commentary here, or the reason for it.

I don't feel "strongly" as though I'm at war with you. You suggested a change and I've expressed my disagreement with it, sharing my reasons along with counterexamples to others' remarks.

I have no reason to doubt your good faith, I haven't given any indication that I do, and I haven't said anything that I can imagine betrays bad faith on my part.

I didn't use "blind" in a pejorative way, I neutrally made an analogy to people who can't see saying "I see", in response to a comment that was expressing a very narrow, literal understanding of the word "know". It isn't a personal attack because it isn't an attack and it isn't directed at anyone. It mystifies me that you're raising WP:PA in that regard. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:ETHNICGROUP#Other Mikewem (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who's been editing Modern Hebrew

I get that its not technically correct, but all I want is consistency - you can see a lot of that in the things I've edited over the past few days, and one thing I've noticed is that a vast majority of English-language pages involving Hebrew text/subjects format it in a way where the Hebrew text displayed in the infobox is in serif as opposed to san-serif in the lede and elsewhere; Again - in general. So I've just assumed that it's an unspoken rule to format it in such a way. I've even looked on languages such as Chinese and others and they format it in such a way too. In addition, I just like the aesthetics of it. Hebrew serif is gorgeous so I don't think its really best to keep all text in sans. I understand the reasoning behind why I'm not supposed to put script inside lang, and if it changed nothing about the text style I wouldn't care, but this rule seems to prevent any Hebrew text beyond letters in isolation from having serifs, which I think is a darn shame, and many others seem to be in agreement.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I just find it strange that in a place where rules in editing are followed relatively stringently, from what I've seen, everywhere except this page apparently disregards this one rule specifically. Including the literal Hebrew Language mainpage. Either everyone is ignorant or there's something missing. If it's truly a larger problem that needs to be fixed, I'll gladly work to at least attempt to update the many, many pages that do so. All I am doing is in good faith, and at the end of the day you know much more than me. Dyazang (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dyazang: Hi there. Well, regarding situations where it seems something's OK because it's done elsewhere even though someone is pointing out that it's contrary to the guidelines, there's an essay, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In this particular situation, I'm conjecturing that much of the template nesting you see is a legacy practice, from when there was great inconsistency in the treatment of interspersed text in alternate languages and browsers were less adept at font selection or had less coverage of non-Latin character sets. I don't know any specifics in that regard but that would be a reasonable explanation.

As for personal preference, if someone preferred to see English text in a serif font, or if they liked seeing German text in Fraktur font, do you think they'd be justified in switching articles on which they focus their attention to a serif font, or German text to a Fraktur font? Actually, I don't understand why the font used by default when {{lang}} or {{langx}} is applied differs from the font used when {{script/Hebrew}} is applied. They should be the same, precisely to secure consistency. I'm going to see what the best place is to inquire about that. Largoplazo (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Correcting spelling errors in comments

I'm in receipt of your reversions, along with this admonition: "Please don't edit the text of other users' talk page comments, even to correct errors."

Why not? I'm extended confirmed. And what's different about talk-page comments, as opposed to the text of any article on here? Sloppiness is not something that should be encouraged. Rontrigger (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rontrigger: Because articles are a collaborative endeavor by multiple editors writing collectively as Wikipedia while a talk page is a collection of users' own comments writing as themselves. It isn't one user's call to make it look as though other users, expressing themselves, wrote anything other than what they wrote. And it's against the rules. See WP:TPO. Largoplazo (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Funny you should mention "rules." Second word in a two-word sentence, and the first word is "Illiteracy." Rontrigger (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)