User talk:Nardog: Difference between revisions

Thanks for uploading Image:PiriformLtd.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Dragonball Evolution. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kantaris claims to be LGPL/GPL which is absolutely nonsense, because your software is either LGPL (which means it can also be used as GPL software) or GPL (which absolutely excludes LGPL). Since it claims it (also) contains GPL code, the software's license cannot be LGPL.

Nowhere on the homepage nor in the sourcecode nor in the program itself could I find a hint to the software license (only the claim on the homepage, it is "free and open source"). So they are obviously violaters (if you consider them claiming to distribute GPL software, which I somehow doubt, because imo it is not enough to say this once while installing, especially if installing is not necessary because you can also use the zip file which runs without installation).

--62.178.80.242 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nardog. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that on his page for me and thanks for coming to my defense on the talkpage. The way Tharthan came off was extremely unnecessary when I needed help with something I have no idea what I'm doing with. If I need help IPA again I'll probably reach out do you directly.--Rockchalk717 04:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you do a fair bit of editing to add or change IPA spelling on pages. I reverted your second edit on the Efua Baker page, as she is a British artist, and the schwa vowel is not rhotacised in British English, other than when it occurs in word-final position and precedes a word beginning with a consonant sound in connected speech. Please keep this in mind when adding or altering the phonetic spelling on pages of non-American and non-Canadian people/bands/products.Nqr9 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you're mistaken. The IPA notation {{IPAc-en}} uses is a diaphonemic transcription, so "ər" in that template represents not just the sound /ər/ but any sound produced when pronouncing part of the word by any speaker of any variety of English: /ə/, /ɚ/, /ɹ̩/, /əɾ/, /ɘɹ/, etc. See Help:IPA for English#Dialect variation for details. It is indeed inconvenient that the template allows to show one variation per diaphoneme, but... Nardog (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been adding respellings to many articles with the article summary "respelling must accompany IPA" and linking to MOS/Pronunciation. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation that indicates a respelling must accompany IPA. At most, it says (in the first paragraph) respellings for English words "can be used in addition to the IPA".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: Um... I've never been adding respellings to articles. I've only been adding IPA notations to articles which had respellings but not IPA. An IPA notation /ˌlʊks laɪk ˈðɪs/ and a respelling LUUKS-lyke-DHIS. The MOS states,

"For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using {{respell}}) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA."

The documentation at Template:Respell says:

"Per the Manual of Style, respelling should follow the International Phonetic Alphabet, and never be used in place of it."

So a respelling indeed must accompany an IPA notation preceding it, but not vice versa. Does this clarify things for you? Nardog (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So sorry. I misread the diffs. My misreading of the diffs was probably influenced by your wording of the edit summary. The wording "respelling must accompany IPA" means anywhere there is IPA, it must be accompanied by a respelling, which is obviously wrong. Alternatively, "respelling must be accompanied by IPA" would make sense as would "IPA must accompany respelling" (which means anywhere there's a respelling, IPA must accompany it). So I apologize for misreading the diffs, you are correctly interpreting MOS/Pronunciation and doing a great job with the IPA. I would suggest, however, rewording your edit summary though so as to avoid confusing others. Cheers!--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in, but exactly! I spent quite some time being confused by that edit summary. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have been tweaking IPA templates. It appears that your changes have caused some pages to transclude {{error}}s: Pages transcluding errors in mainspace

• Click consonant
• Affricate consonant
• Ejective consonant
• Implosive consonant

These pages are also populating Category:IPA pages with non-existing IPA audio soundfile. I find this topic and these pages very difficult to understand. Can you fix this? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thank you for reporting. The error was more or less intended because the template used #iferror: to check if the value was valid. I've replaced it with #ifexist: so they will no longer show up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Error. As for the category, it seems like pages that called the template with empty values had added it. I've modified the template so that the category will be added so long as a value is entered. Nardog (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA-hu suddenly stopped working, and the reason appears to be your recent edit at Template:IPA. Do you think you could undo your edit until it can be redone in a way that doesn't result in Template:IPA-hu not working? Libhye (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Libhye: Thank you for reporting. I'll look into it and discuss it at Template talk:IPA. Nardog (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm wondering why you made edits to my last edits and why the photo of Chaquico was taken down? I don't see that I did anything that violated the style of Wikipedia. Please can you give reasons for your edits?Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheryl Fullerton: You must have the wrong person. The only edit I made on Craig Chaquico has nothing to do with any pictures. It merely corrected the pronunciation notations. Nardog (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was mistaken, I apologize for the confusion. I must have been looking at an earlier edition. Thank you!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton[reply]

Since the summary for your removal contains no reason, one can only guess at the reason. I can imagine the following possible reasons:

1. The word "before" in your summary suggests that maybe you simply are guided by a misconception that changes need to be discussed first (or maybe at least in pages that you own). That would, however, be a gross misunderstanding of our guidelines, particularly of WP:Bold. If that is the case, I politely urge you to read those guidelines carefully.
2. The missing reason suggests that it may simply be a matter of personal preference. In this case, it would help if you explained why you feel the page is better the way you left it. Maybe you have a point that is hard to express, in which case we can figure it out together.

Following WP:BRD, I will start a discussion at Template talk:IPAc-en, where your input would be appreciated. (You asked for the discussion to be at Help_talk:IPA/English, but I see no reason why that unrelated page, which is only one of many pages that indirectly use the page in question, would be preferable to the standard talk page. Since you yourself used the template talk page before, I'm presuming that was just a typo. If not, please feel free to leave a note on your preferred talk page pointing to the discussion.) — Sebastian 11:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: No, it is not a typo, and Help:IPA/English is not even remotely "unrelated" to {{IPAc-en}}. Since each language has its own phonological system, any IPA notation using an IPA(c)-xx template must use only the symbols defined at the key page for the respective language (under Help:IPA/...), unless it's a minor language for which the key doesn't exist yet (see WP:PRON for more). Therefore any addition, modification or removal of a symbol in an IPAc template must be done in accordance with the corresponding key.

I am familiar with WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. But it doesn't seem fair to me for an admin to "boldly" edit a module that's protected as high-risk because then only admins and template editors such as ourselves can boldly edit or revert. Admins have the responsibility to act in accordance with prior consensus when doing anything non-admins can't do.

Moreover, the current set of permissible combinations of symbols of {{IPAc-en}} is a product of extensive, collective deliberation (Help talk:IPA/English alone has 17 archives so far; and other related discussions have taken place at WT:PRON, Template talk:H:IPA, etc., and obviously at Template talk:IPAc-en, for over a decade). Take a look, for example, at the discussion at Help talk:IPA/English#Nasal vowels. There the OP proposed that we replace /ɒ̃/ with four different symbols, and we came to an agreement to add just one and keep /ɒ̃/ instead, after spending more than 1,800 words citing literature from scholars and dictionaries. That's the kind of deliberation we do there. So adding a symbol just because of one source without prior discussion is not only unfair to those who do not have the privilege but also unlike anything that's been done to the template.

So I suggest you propose adding /ç/ first at Help talk:IPA/English rather than at Template talk:IPAc-en. The help page has more watchers too. Nardog (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We resolved this back in August at Template talk:IPAc-en/Archive 2#Addition of /ç/. But when I just revisited this page, I realized that your post above contained an interesting statement that is worth to be remembered: "Admins have the responsibility ... ". While "... when doing anything non-admins can't do" was a distortion, since you as a non-admin obviously could do the same thing without a problem, as evidenced by the fact that you reverted me right away, you do have a point. I agree with you that adminship brings with it additional responsibilities. Would you be interested to word it so that it could be added to Wikipedia:Administrators § Expectations of adminship? Or should this be a responsibility for all templateeditors? That would naturally straighten out the distortion. — Sebastian 10:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Well, feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Administrators as far as I'm concerned. Wikipedia:Administrators is a policy which reflects consensus so it's not up to me (nor you) to decide whether such a statement needs to be included in it. For template editors we already have something along the same lines at Wikipedia:Template editor.

(I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "distortion". If anything you're the one who first edited a protected module without prior discussion, which indeed was something a non-admin or non-template editor couldn't have done. Does boldly undoing it count as one as well? If so that practically means admins can do whatever non-admins can't do without prior discussion until a consensus is made to not keep it.) Nardog (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a misunderstanding, triggered by my bad word choice. Instead of "distortion", a better word might have been "discrepancy", since I did not mean to refer to an edit. All I meant was that in the the wording of the suggested rule, the word "admin" occurs twice, but once it actually doesn't refer to admins. A possible solution would be the following wording:

"Template editors have the responsibility [...] when doing anything non-Template editors can't do." That would mean, however, that it shouldn't be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, but at Wikipedia:Template editor. What do you think? — Sebastian 12:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Again, go ahead, as far as I'm concerned, because it's not up to me. I don't have a particular opinion as to whether we should have an explicit clause like that at Wikipedia:Administrators and/or Wikipedia:Template editor. Nardog (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for staying on the ball. Actually, the whole point of this suggestion was to address your concern. If even you feel tepid about it, then let's not worry about it anymore. Happy editing! — Sebastian 12:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the overarching injunction to "use common sense", and the implied acceptability of supplementing the IPA with anything that works, any attempt to ban respelling for languages other than English makes no sense. When it works, there can be no conceivable reason to disallow it; people just shouldn't try to use it when it doesn't work. Given how few Anglophones know the IPA, respelling when it works is extremely useful, especially in the case of terms whose pronunciation is counter-intuitive to a lot of people. The words, names, etc. may be in languages other than English, but we have to assume that our readers are proficient in English. Cheers, Awien (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate the fact that you correct IPA transcriptions enclosed in the IPAc-en template, but try to check the whole transcription before saving. For example, here you left /i/ in a stressed position (it should've been changed to /iː/) and here you left /ən/ after another nasal (it should've been changed to /ən/). Hope this doesn't come across as stalker-ish, it's just something I noticed. As it says on my user page, I sometimes check out what other Wikipedians have recently been doing out of boredom. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: I appreciate all your corrections, but please don't think I'm correcting notations deliberately partially. I do check the whole transcription, but especially when I'm doing it en masse, I can only pay so much attention and sometimes I overlook stuff. Nardog (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I guess my recent edit summaries were unfair. My mistake. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: Thank you for your understanding. Nardog (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I've missed a relevant discussion, but the parentheses you've included in this edit go against the consensus as I understand it. Can you please either point me to the discussion where a new consensus was reached or revert the addition of the parentheses? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeusoes1: Hmm, I had added the parentheses in the sandbox thinking it would help prevent good-faith edits removing /j/ subject to dropping (like this) and just included them when I made the edit, but perhaps I should have given more thought to it. I'll revert and maybe bring it up at Template talk:IPAc-en. Nardog (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I wondered if you knew of any good sources that discuss the idea that [ɚ] and [ɹ]. I've been trying to find some lately. Let me know and thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: I think it's just an arbitrary choice dependent on phonology rather than phonetics. Professor Roach seems to agree. Much like [i]–[j] and [u]–[w], [ɚ] is just a vocalic equivalent of [ɹ] ([ɹ̠] to be exact, but the IPA chart defines [ɹ] as covering the whole coronal region and there's no phonemic variation in the area in English so just [ɹ] will do). Here's an example of describing the NURSE/lettER vowel as [ɹ̩] rather than [ɚ]. Nardog (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I was trying finding a firm source to guard against users who revert/delete such statements. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change it on this page but not Deseret (Book of Mormon) or Deseret, Utah? I see you did also change Deseret News. Just overlooked? I don't know enough about IPA to know which version is right. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks, as for the syllabification (the full stop) between /z/ and /ə/, although there is a division in the original AHD notation, it is not necessary in our Help:IPA/English system since there is no ambiguity (and also one could argue /z/ is ambisyllabic). As for the full stop at the end, no one familiar with IPA would argue it's necessary. Thus /dɛzəˈrɛt/ is just fine. Nardog (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I have sent Sweyn78 a message on his own Talk page. RoachPeter (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for a merge of these articles [1]. It was proposed, and I objected. Even the person proposing the merge recognized that there were significant problems with the material. What's your justification for making the merge? Three hours after a rewrite is not sufficient time for other editors to evaluate the new content, particularly when there has been no support for a merge after 4 months. This is not an unopposed merge. Please undo this merge until it can be discussed. Meters (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: You can revert per WP:BRD, then, as far as I'm concerned. Nardog (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing it now. I'm asking you to justify your merge If you can't justify it then you should never have made it, and you should have immediately undone it yourself when asked. Meters (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't consider this a bold move as much as a clear mistake. Meters (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have any information about how consonant length is determined in Swedish? I know if a certain vowel is short and stressed, the next consonant is geminated, although this consonant may also be short. Is there a predictable way to judge the length? — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 22:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: Hello?? — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 04:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: Oh come on, it's not even been a couple days. I'm busy for these few days (or rather, I'm supposed to be; so @Mr KEBAB and Wolfdog: sorry, thanks for your patience). I know I've made some little edits since your message, but that's because I figured I'd get back to you once I had the answer. (But it's okay. This is just me being a jerk, I understand your perspective too.)

Anyways, have you tried contacting Peter Isotalo? He is a native speaker of Swedish and one of the major contributors to the Swedish phonology article, so he might be able to answer your questions (which I'm afraid I am not, at least for the moment). Nardog (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: Yeah, be a bit more patient. Did you check Riad? He surely mentions it, length is very important in Swedish phonology. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: I thought he said he didn't have access to the relevant part of the book on your talk page. Nardog (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two previews available, and apparently not everyone can access the same pages on GB (at least sometimes). Also, I'm sure that at least one library in Sydney (if he still lives there) has this book. He probably can check that online. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB and Awesomemeeos: Also your library or institution may have a subscription to Oxford Scholarship Online. Nardog (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for acting like an arsehole in my part. However I will check my local libraries whether they have this book or not. I will think about talking to Peter, as he only made small edits just two months ago... — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 11:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nardog! This happened awhile ago, but I thought it may be worth talking about my edit and your reversion of the edit. First I want to say, you're absolutely correct: キョ is romanized as kyo in Japanese. My edit was because the pronunciation of "apricot" that I linked, in Japanese, is actually キョウ, or kyou. This is where things get a little confusing - I know little about plants but I do know some things about Japanese - if Kaempfer would have used キョ, that's fine, and it makes sense to say "gingkgo is a misspelling of gin kyo." My correction was because kyo itself is a misspelling of the pronunciation of the word in Japanese, which is subtly different and sounds much the same, but is actually "spelled" キョウ, which becomes romanized as kyou. So your edit makes sense if we're talking about a misspelling from Kaempfer - my edit was talking about the misspelling of the Japanese itself. May be too late and may be not worth getting into, but it's something that my Japanese understanding has me interested in getting correct, if we're talking about a misspelling from the original Japanese! Thanks for the nod to my edit being in good faith :) -Mldavis92 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mldavis92: No, both キョ and キョウ are typically romanized as kyo. What is spelled オウ ou is in fact most often pronounced as a long vowel オー ō (the chōonpu is a recent innovation). Such a sequence is typically romanized as ō in the Hepburn system, which is the de facto standard. And due to typographical limitations (or sheer laziness), the macron is often omitted (or sometimes replaced with a breve), so just o is a totally sound (and even predominant) romanization of such a long vowel. Think of Shinzo Abe, Junichiro Koizumi, Yoko Ono, etc., which would be Shinzō Abe, Jun'Ichirō Koizumi, and Yōko Ono in a more precise transcription. See Romanization of Japanese for more. Nardog (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nardog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't look like WP:PRON says what you say it does. Is there some reason you think it serves the reader better to mess with an FA by making it harder for readers to read? You appear to be confusing accuracy and precision—your IPA is more precise but harder to read, while the original is sufficiently accurate and gives the reader what they need. Besides, if you're going to be this pedantic, why not give an Edo-period IPA? Or range of IPA representations crossing the centuries in which the term was originally used? Keep in mind that the article has already gone through several rounds of review, including by Japanese speakers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: WP:PRON § Other languages: if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page before creating transcriptions which are not supported by the key, or before changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions, either one of which is likely to confuse readers.

So yes, so long as one is using language-specific IPA, one must adhere to the language's key. This is because a given IPA symbol does not always represent the same sound across languages, or otherwise we would invite a tremendous amount of clutter. Even [ɯkʲijoe] is already a very simplified notation; an actually precise transcription would look something like [ʔɯ̟ᵝʔ͡kʲijo̞e̞]. So if it doesn't help readers in your opinion, I agree, it might as well be just removed. Nardog (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of minimal pairs distinguishing [ɯ] from [u] or [kʲi] from [ki] in Japanese? Of course not—this is noise unhelpful to the reader in the context. Are you even trying to understand why the IPA is being given in the context? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: And why are you refusing to understand that you're doing things in the wrong order? It's Help:IPA/Japanese that you should ask to be changed, not that one transcription which links there. You're also misrepresenting our position - nobody is claiming that Japanese has two contrastive back vowels or that palatalization of the voiceless velar stop is phonemic. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer to the question posed—there are reasons we use ⟨r⟩ in English IPA on Wikipedia, even though very few English speakers use the sound represented by that IPA symbol. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Further, there are those fighting to have IPA removed as pronunciation guides in the leads entirely, and this hairsplitting nonsense only feeds that movement (there's such a discussion going on at MOS:BIO right now). You folk are only shooting yourselves in the foot if you're going to continue with this nonsense. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog, I'm going to ignore Mr K's trolling. My concerns are serious and need to be addressed. Can we have an adult discussion about this? Neither removal nor the IPA you added are solutions that best serve the reader in the context. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey and Mr KEBAB: Please do not add any more comments on this topic here any longer. This conversation has been exhausting. --Nardog (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the discussion went down a back alley. I hope we'll find an appropriate solution at Help talk:IPA/Japanese. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fair enough, and I also apologize. I can see why you wouldn't want to read this on your own talk page. You can remove the negativity if you want, I have no problem with that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet § IPA and respelling

Hi I live in Rainworth and I was going to add a sound to show how the village name is pronounced however it's locked. Could you contact me at (awindup) at hotmail.com to get an authentic pronunciation? Yours Paul Pengelly Fyi if you prefer to do it yourself that's fine just trying to help. Awindup (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Awindup: Thank you for your message but I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you talking about the article Rainworth? As far as I can see the article is not "locked", or, as the Wikipedia community calls it, protected. So you can edit it yourself as far as I know.

If you want to upload a sound file, you need to go to Wikimedia Commons. And here's an instruction on how to add the file on Wikipedia once you have uploaded it on Commons. If you have any further questions, you may ask them at the help desk. Hope this helps. Nardog (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its a page on English pronunciation you edited in last day or so that's all not the village page it's a language one so it's locked . Awindup (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Awindup: Is List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: M–Z what you're talking about? Are you saying it's not pronounced /ˈrɛnəθ/ (REN-əth), which the article claims it is? Nardog (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If say forget it because you are obviously busy . I just found a series of pages where the place names were contradictory pronunciations and Rainworth was in there some of the others had samples and this one didn't but I really can't be bothered now... As you'd edited 1 day ago I thought you'd know which page but you're talking about a totally different one so you must do far too many to remember sorry to disturb you . Paul Awindup (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Awindup: It's OK. Do you have a link to one of the pages you're talking about? I checked my contributions log but couldn't find any page that had the pronunciation (or even a mention) of Rainworth that I recently edited. (Please use the "[edit]" link next to the section title to add a reply.) Nardog (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very disappointed by your deletion of the list of YouTube links to "Notable speakers of RP". I have had quite a lot of positive feedback about them from readers. I proposed adding the links on the Talk page some time ago, and asked for comments, but I got nothing from you (or anyone else). I have to say that if I had been going to delete a piece of your work, I would have notified you beforehand. I have now moved the links to my own website, with a link to that. I sincerely hope you will not now go on to delete the specimen of RP that I contributed some time ago. RoachPeter (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoachPeter: I'm sure any experienced editor familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines would have done the same thing as I did. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook, manual, dictionary, or directory, a repository of links, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Your links also included ones to videos seemingly not uploaded by their respective content owners, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia:External links § Restrictions on linking. If you intend to write from a purely educational point of you, I suggest you consider writing on Wikibooks or Wikiversity rather than here.

I have to say that if I had been going to delete a piece of your work, I would have notified you beforehand. Edits on Wikipedia do not need prior discussion so long as they are supported by valid reason – see Wikipedia:Be bold. While I admire your work as a phonetician and I have no reason to doubt your intention to improve Wikipedia, I can't imagine any experienced editor approving of your edit in question in light of WP:LINKFARM, WP:External links, etc. Nardog (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Roach, I'm quite astonished to find that you "presume that [I] would also like [you] to remove the IPA Illustration of RP that [you] also contributed to the article".[2] Could you explain why you think I—or anyone—would want to do that? Both the recording and the transcription you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy, whereas your links to YouTube clearly do not comply with multiple points of the content guideline Wikipedia:External links, particularly the statements such as Some external links are welcome ... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article; and External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner. Also note that it says The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. I strongly recommend you take a thorough look at the guideline, along with some of the policies and guidelines it links to, particularly Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

While I appreciate your effort to improve the phonetics-related content on Wikipedia, I regret to say some of your comments on talk pages and on your blog reflect—in my opinion—insufficient understanding of Wikipedia's goals and ideas. Particularly, I was recently reading your blog and struck by your assertion from three years ago that (you were told that) Wikipedia "doesn't want experts writing on their own fields, but pieces written by non-specialists who just report on what other people have said".[3] While the very fact you had that impression tells me the person(s) who explained it to you may not have been doing as great a job as they could have done, and you might have a better understanding now, I nonetheless find it important to point out it is—again, in my personal opinion—a gross misrepresentation of Wikipedia's principles. Wikipedia welcomes experts writing on their own fields with open arms; it just does not hold them to any lower standard than anybody else (see Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors). You and I know you are a renowned phonetician. So I can take your word for it whenever it has an attribution to you. But the text of Wikipedia doesn't have attribution to any individual editor and can be modified by anybody by design. So how does one know an article is written by someone with an adequate understanding of the subject? One may look at the revision history and then at the profile of each contributor, but not every editor reveals their identity or is an academic, and if Wikipedia only allowed edits from distinguished academics such as you it wouldn't have been nearly as popular or flourished. So what it does instead is require everyone, without an exception, to make sure each contribution is verifiable with reliable sources. (So, as I commented on Talk:Phonetic palindrome, it may sometimes be more acceptable for you, an authority on the subject, to publish content on your website and then cite it as a source than to post directly on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources.) I'm sure this is to an extent a concept already familiar to you by now, but I debated whether to point it out to you when I was reading your blog a few weeks ago and I figured I might as well use this opportunity to do it now.

Going back to this incident, I also find it important to point out that Wikipedia is not a place to promote any particular idea, however virtuous it may be. The burden of making sure people accurately appreciate what Received Pronunciation is is on them, not on us editors. Our primary job is to document and describe things, not to educate people. So while your JIPA specimen perfectly suits the article as it illustrates Received Pronunciation according to an article published in an influential, peer-reviewed journal, whose author happens to be you, we need not go so far as to provide links to (comparatively) random videos found on the internet just so readers can have a further appreciation of what RP is. That burden is on them. (The links may also be problematic as, like Sidney Wood has raised issues in a comment on your blog, people still debate what RP is or even whether it exists, while the specimen was published specifically as an illustration of RP in a scientific publication.) If your primary motivation is to educate people on phonetics, I suggest you do it on your site, Wikibooks, or Wikiversity, or in another form.

That being said, I look forward to more of your feedback on Wikipedia's coverage on phonetics, which I'm sure has been invaluable to many. You are also invited to the History of the International Phonetic Alphabet article, which I recently revised mostly from scratch and which is by far my biggest contribution to Wikipedia. I think it improves upon the Kiel Convention, which you previously discussed on your blog, and, since you are one of the direct witnesses and participants to the subject of the article itself, your comment would be greatly appreciated. I apologize for the long-winded reply and am sorry that you were disappointed, but I hope something fruitful will come out of this. Nardog (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your full and prompt reply. I accept the points you make, and it's clear that I still have not properly understood how WP works and is managed. I am sorry I complained about the deletion of the links I had put in. I should have taken time to reflect. There are several points you make that I still need to understand, and might want to ask you about, but for the present I want to apologize for having written what I did. RoachPeter (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoachPeter: Thank you for your understanding, I appreciate your apology. Please feel free to ask me further questions, but I also would like to emphasize that I can only speak from my perspective and I do not comprehend Wikipedia's policies and guidelines fully either. You may want to go to WP:Help desk if you want more comprehensive, neutral or diverse answers. But again, direct questions are also welcome. Nardog (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Was ⟨ω⟩ ever an official symbol, or was it just an invention of Wells? If it's the former, maybe it'd be good to use the symbol on near-close back unrounded vowel. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: As far as I know, no, it was never part of the IPA—I don't even recall seeing the symbol in any of the works I cited in History of the IPA. I don't know if it was Wells who devised it, but it does seem AoE is the only major publication that has used it for the unrounded [ʊ] (Pullum & Ladusaw 1996:146). Nardog (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it's probably not a very good idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nardog. This outburst reminded me that you still haven't addressed the last comment I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/January 2018# How hair-splitting should an IPA pronunciation guide be?—in particular, where I pointed out that Help:IPA/Japanese tells us that [ɯ] is pronounced at the as the [uː] in "food" (the whole dispute at ukiyo-e was over the use of [u] vs [ɯ]). That really can't go unadressed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: Any example in the "English approximation" column in any IPA key is inevitably that—an approximation—since obviously English does not have all sounds found in languages and there is a great deal of variation among the accents of English. No major variety of English has a sound which closely and reliably corresponds to the Japanese /u/ (while FLEECE more or less reliably corresponds to Japanese /i/ save for length, for example), hence the additional qualifier "roughly like".

English GOOSE is quite variable: in North America, it is usually fronted to [ʉ~y] except in the US North (see ANAE); in RP (or, whatever it is the least regionally marked variety of British English based on Southern English accents), the trend is to pronounce it more like the Japanese /u/, i.e. more front and less round (see Received Pronunciation#Vowels). But this is true for almost all accents: GOOSE is not as front or unrounded as FLEECE, nor is it as low as FOOT. So it is the closest sound found in English to Japanese /u/. Nardog (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This lecture totally misses the point, and I think you know by now that I'm not simply ignorant in things phonological, so we'd get further if you stopped making that assumption.

Your argument was that we couldn't present readers with /u/ as any sort of approximation of the initial vowel in "ukiyo-e" in a pronunciation guide, because people will click through to Help:IPA/Japanese and get confused. Then Help:IPA/Japanese gives us an approximation we've bent over backwards to avoid giving them. This contradiction needs to be dealt with—either by fixing Help:IPA/Japanese, or (better) by dropping the ideology and giving readers a simple IPA pronunciation guide with links to the nitty-gritty details for those interested in them. You know, the way we do everything else on Wikipedia.

Regardless, it's an issue that has to be addressed, and not brushed aside with tangential mansplanations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: I'm sorry I came across as condescending to you, but I'm still having a hard time understanding what you're getting at. As far as I can see, there is no "contradiction", because, again, the English /uː/, albeit variable, is still the closest sound English has to the Japanese /u/. And, as far as I'm concerned, giving readers a simple IPA pronunciation guide with links to the nitty-gritty details for those interested in them is what we already do. (I assume your argument is that the IPA pronunciation guides are already too nitty-gritty and should be simpler?) In any case, if you believe we should do things differently, I'd appreciate if you posted that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation or wherever appropriate rather than here. Nardog (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bring this to another outside forum? No, because the locus of the dispute is with you, and the contradiction is not at Help:IPA/Japanese, but with your assertions about it (it needs to be "fixed" only to conform to your assertions). You've overturned a consensus that held at the ukiyo-e page for years—one that went through WP:PR, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, WP:TFA, and well over a million page views. You overturned it on a faulty assumption, and have simply ignored explanations about why this particular representation was chosen (to serve multiple use cases for a wide variety of readers and contexts, not one narrow Japanese-specific one). I gave you the benefit of the doubt by removing it until the dispute was resolved—the default is to keep the established version until then—but you've been dodging discussion ever since, with the assumption (which you've resumed here) that the issue is that I just don't "get" IPA (a condescending attitude that has blinded you to why your edit has been problematic).

If you refuse to engage in actual good-faith discussion to find a consensus for your change, then per WP:CONSENSUS I'll be restoring the IPA that stood there for years, serving the purpose and audience it was intended to serve. I say this not to be combattitive, but because (I've I've gone over in excruciating detail) your edit has reduced the breadth and applicability of the pronuciation guide—it has degraded the usefulness and accessibility of the content. For what gains to the general readership? You haven't made a case there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: Go ahead and restore it. Nardog (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About your question: why not ask User:Bishonen if this is still an issue for you. To me, the block length appears normal for the incivility regardless of the details. See this comment by Mr KEBAB which I assume is typical. At least, Jakeroberts93 said Mr K leaves 'very demeaning messages' in a comment just above yours at AN3. I did not check all of Mr KEBAB's past comments, but let me know if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: My question wasn't about the block length but about the fact the background for the block was not clear for those not directly involved to see. In fact, Jakeroberts93 there seems to have thought that the reason for the block was the language he used in his own talk, which in fact was merely his reaction to the block. (I did ping Bishonen at AN3, btw.)

For the record, I worked with Mr KEBAB for months (our interests seemed to overlap to a large extent), and it is undeniable he had some issues regarding civility—he had no trouble working with editors with competence, ready to compromise at times, but he seemed to be really short-tempered with editors inexperienced in phonetics/linguistics—but I wouldn't in any way describe that comment as "typical". If it were, he would have been gone a long, long time ago. Nardog (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find detailed explanations about #if #switch #invoke? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshrathod50: Help:Magic words, Help:Conditional expressions, mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. Next time you may want to go to WP:Help desk for this kind of inquiry though. Nardog (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you because you are a template editor and I thought you would reply fast. But no problem, thanks for the advice. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me to write the IPA for Yuna in Yuna page? You can hear the word 'Yuna' from any videos or interviews about her on YouTube. Thank you! Adib Kamaruddin (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adib Kamaruddin: It would be /ˈjuːnə/, but I don't know why you'd need it on the page. Do people find it difficult to pronounce? Unless they do, I don't think it should be added in consideration of WP:LEADPRON. Nardog (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the UK and US prescripts should only be used in pairs. In the case of Guy Fieri, we can't know the UK pronunciation of his name, and his nationality already implies that the pronunciation is for US English anyway. --maczkopeti (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maczkopeti: Without a label an IPAc-en notation by default implies that it is panlectal. You may start a discussion at Help talk:IPA/English about this if you like, but I'd appreciate it if you refrained from boldly removing them from articles. Nardog (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, for some reason it didn't cross my mind to use my own sandbox to do the exact same thing. No wonder it hadn't been edited since 2013. 9³ (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So /g/ is marked as a misspelling. The problem with misspellings in hatnotes is that they show up in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings list, demanding the attention of the spelling patrol to fix them. Misspellings simply should not be in hatnotes. So my question is, what is the single Unicode character /g/ a valid spelling for? We should redirect that character to its valid use. wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. It's actually 3 characters. It seems to be a valid use at 4chan § History so we could redirect it to there, with a hatnote from there back to the IPA article. wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. I wonder how many people type "/g/" to get to Voiced velar stop and how many to get to 4chan#History, but I don't think either is many. But "g" is a legitimate typographical alternative to "ɡ" in IPA and all IPA characters enclosed in slashes redirect to the page about the corresponding sound (/l/, /p/, etc.), so for consistency's sake I think the target is best left as is.

One more thing: Is Template:R from tpyo a redirect from a misspelling? And why is it there? lol Nardog (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. I see that is was just tagged as a misspelling fairly recently by an IP. Yeah, I dunno about that tpyo template either! wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm just wondering why you added a "stress?" tag behind the IPA for the Cetiosauriscus article. I'd like to figure out how to fix and remove it but I'm not quite sure what it is indicating. Thanks --IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid: All English words with two or more syllables have at least one stress, indicated by "ˈ" (primary) and "ˌ" (secondary, tertiary) in the IPA. I instated the tag because the pronunciation notation lacked it. Anyway, I have fixed it with a source. Nardog (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nardog,

Yes, I believe that was the consensus. Since per Ladefoged English does not have post-tonic stress, it would be factually incorrect for us to do so. The OED, btw, does not add such faux stress to words, even 'motorcycle'. Other dictionaries use the bottom stroke to mark unreduced vowels, but that's not the IPA definition of that IPA symbol, and since we have dedicated symbols for reduced vowels, we don't need to fake it.

It's not our definition either. I'd really prefer not to expand the English IPA table to explain that if the bottom stroke comes before the top stroke, it indicates stress, but that if it comes after it does not, and is completely meaningless.

Another one of our consensuses was that stressed syllables should be marked, e.g. that we should not follow the confusing practice of some dictionaries in marking a single syllable with a stress mark to indicate that it's really two syllables. After all, there are lexically unstressed words in English, even if they're not likely to be used as the title of a WP page.

— kwami (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Could you point to the discussions where those consensuses were formed? Nardog (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was years ago, when we worked out the pan-dialectal IPA-en key and the months during which we implemented it across WP. The reason we have the current semi-phonemic transcription of rhotic vowels is that RP speakers wouldn't stand for a phonemic transcription, and we compromised. They're in the archives somewhere.

The problem with following dictionaries on stress, beside deciding which one to elevate over the others, is that their conventions were formed by impressionistic transcriptions in the late 19th to mid 20th century. Research has since shown that they are not accurate lexical-phonemic descriptions, mixing up as they do prosodic stress, lexical stress and vowel reduction. What we currently have is fairly straightforward, if not exactly phonemic -- the final stressed syllable takes the 1ary mark, while all preceding stressed syllables take the 2ary mark. Last I heard, no language was known to have phonemic 2ary lexical stress, though there were arguments about the quality of data and analysis for some other Germanic languages that were commonly transcribed with 2ary stress.

The OED is the greatest dictionary ever written, so I don't think we should have difficulty justifying following them and phonetic research in not transcribing all non-reduced vowels as having imaginary 2ary stress. But, if we do decide to do that, and wish to be responsible to our readers, we'll need to explain that a 2ary stress mark before a 1ary stress mark indicates (primary) stress, but that a 2ary stress mark after a 1ary stress mark indicates no stress. Which I foresee generating a lot more arguments than just following the OED and Ladefoged.

(Phonemically, of course, per Ladefoged we should only use the 1ary stress mark, but the current convention does little harm. Though, with only one stress mark, we might not rehash this argument every couple years.)

As for marking stress on monosyllables, we've been over that many times too. The OED, for example, uses a stress mark to distinguish disyllables from monosyllables, which is not how the IPA defines it. That's why we clarify usage of the syllable break in the IPA key. And in several of our articles, we do transcribe unstressed words, and if we didn't mark stressed monosyllables, we'd have no way of indicating they were unstressed. Basically, though, if we're going to have a phonemic transcription between virgules, then ideally the transcription should be phonemic -- which means indicating stress when there is stress. Again, if we decide not to do that, we should change the description in the IPA key to note that the stress mark only indicates stress in polysyllables, while stressed monosyllables are not distinguished from unstressed.

— kwami (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: How is one supposed to believe there ever were such consensuses, then?

OED is indeed a great dictionary, but pronunciation always was and remains to be one of the weakest aspects of the dictionary. Even Ladefoged recommends LPD and CEPD over Upton & Kretzschmar (not to mention no publisher has adopted OUP's notation while the Jonesian/Gimsonian systems remain standards in EFL/bilingual dictionaries). And, as you know, LPD and CEPD indicate post-tonic secondary stress in compounds. Even Ladefoged recognizes [+full vowel] as a contributing factor to the levels of stress. Do you have any source that categorically states post-tonic stress isn't stress? I also find the idea that dictionaries "omit" stress in monosyllables to distinguish e.g. hire from higher hard to believe because even dictionaries which indicate stress boundaries, such as LPD and CEPD, do not include stress in monosyllables. Please just provide references for your claims when making any. Nardog (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I assume the discussion is in the archive of either the IPA key, the template, or the MOS, but other than that I don't remember.

Ladefoged does note that stressed vowels must be full. However, he's very clear that a vowel being full does not make it stressed. That's basic to his conclusion that English has only one lexical stress distinction. The 2ary "stress" (which he notes has none of the articulatory characteristics of stress) in compounds is predictable by the vowel not being reduced. That is, the 4 stress levels sometimes distinguished are a lexical + prosodic stress (1ary), lexical stress alone (2ary), unstressed full vowel (2ary or 3ary, depending on the analysis), and reduced vowel (4ary). Basically, we never reduce stressed vowels, and prosodic stress only falls on stressed vowels, but that doesn't mean that lack of reduction is a kind of stress.

Also, if we use the 2ary stress mark both pretonically and posttonically, as the dictionaries you cited do, then we're conflating 2ary and 3ary "stress". That is, the phonemic nature of what the mark represents depends on where it is, not what it is. I suppose we could transcribe it /"battle,ship/, with <"> for 1ary, <'> for 2ary, <,> for 3ary (full vowel) and unmarked for 4ary, and explain that <,> isn't actually stress, and that <"> varies with <'> depending on where the word is in a sentence, rather than trying to explain that <,> is sometimes stress and sometimes not, depending on where it is in a word.

"Omit" is maybe too strong a word. Rather, I assume (and it's only an assumption) that a dict like the OED doesn't need to indicate syllable boundaries because they only use stress marks for polysyllables. If they used a phonemic transcription, they'd need either a syllable-boundary marking to distinguish hire and higher (<'haɪər>, <'haɪ.ər>), or convey the difference in the vowels (<'haɪr>, <'haɪər>, which would reflect their historical origins). Since there are lexically unstressed words with full vowels, like "could", "me", "are", stress is distinctive in monosyllables. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Aeusoes1, can you confirm Kwami's assertion that consensuses were formed to eliminate post-tonic stress and to indicate stress in monosyllables? I ask because I think you're pretty much the only one who's been around for as long as Kwami. Nardog (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about conflict of interest. I do not have an interest in the subject I've written about. is there material you have read that would indicate that I have a bias one way or the other? Unbreakable9 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbreakable9: You said you hold the copyright on still photos from the movie Icarus on Commons. If you're not affiliated with the movie, then how do you own the copyright? Nardog (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a freelance journalist and photographer. I shot those photos on set for a story about the film in a local paper that was never published. Unbreakable9 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbreakable9: What do you mean, "never published"? The pictures are all over the internet,[4][5][6][7][8] not to mention the metadata in the pictures you uploaded explicitly say "Copyright holder: NETFLIX" and "Copyright status: Copyrighted". Nardog (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please delete these image from wikicommons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbreakable9 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nardog. Beth Levin's last name is pronounced with /iː/ rather than /ɪ/ in the second syllable. I'd included the IPA because this is a bit unexpected based on the spelling of her surname.LingLass (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LingLass: Thanks. The Help:IPA/English key which Template:IPAc-en adopts defines /i/ as a weak vowel which may be identified as either /iː/ or /ɪ/ depending on accent (the "happY vowel"), so the previous notation /ləˈvin/ was nonsensical. Nardog (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have I understood you correctly? You'd be in favor of deleting that article? Because I think I would too. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbb2: Yes I would. My rationale would be that, as I touched upon on the talk, the article sets out an unattainable goal (and fails massively) as it is impossible to decide on how narrow or broad the chart should be, or on which accents to describe in any way that would escape the criticism of being partial or arbitrary. But since evaluation of such a rationale entails a fair amount of familiarity with the subject, I bet we have a better shot at redirecting it to English phonology or some article (probably via RfC) than at AfD, which, by nature, tends to be political. Nardog (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the original you specified, I find it neither a copyvio or a close paraphrase. If I am in error, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Alright, since the first revision was nothing but copyright violation, I filed it for SD, but it has since been expanded, so I'm instead redacting the violating parts and filing it for a revdel. Nardog (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nardog

I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals (2nd nomination), and also rev-deleted some edits from Political scandals in South Korea and Talk:Political scandals in South Korea that contained merged material from the deleted page. Do you want to have a look at those to just make sure I did the right ones? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Thank you for taking care of the closure and for the heads-up! Yes, I confirm the deleted revisions are the correct ones. Thanks again for doing this. Nardog (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks! Dere aren't a lot of "acceptable" references to it, not dat I could find anyway! Awien (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lutz Ebersdorf. Since you had some involvement with the Lutz Ebersdorf redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Iffy★Chat -- 14:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

after my botched move. I had intended to split them because, they are, both essentially and legally, different entities. Hayholt (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this N. I couldn't tell how far back the nonsense went so I appreciate your fixing things. The page sure seems to have had a lot of vandalism over time. I've added it to my watchlist to try and help. It might be a candidate for WP:RFPP if this keeps up. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see you already put in a request at RFPP and it has been acted on. Thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nardog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a thing about your language expertise but I am glad that people bring their skills to Wikipedia. Thanks from someone who's opinion is really my own. Why did I just read your talk page? Must have too much time to waste. Eschoryii (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a quote, where are the quotation marks? Esszet (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esszet: See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Nardog (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, it doesn't look like a quote, it just looks like a bulleted list. Esszet (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esszet: What it looks like should not be much of our concern. The important thing here is that <blockquote>...</blockquote> signals that its content is a quotation. And it does look different compared to a bare bullet list:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

• A
• B
• C

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

• A
• B
• C

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

At any rate, it's not really my purview to decide how block quotations should look like. I sort of agree that their being quotations is not all that intuitive, but that's a conversation that belongs to some place like WT:MOS. (The difference is more apparent on mobile, by the way.) Nardog (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Yes, it is our concern, it just looks like a bulleted list that was moved over too far. I guess we aren’t making decisions about what block quotations should look like, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bulleted list as a block quotation anywhere before (hence the edit), so the onus is on you to explain why it should be. It wouldn’t be a difficult fix; I’d say the best thing to do would be to paraphrase here. Esszet (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long, but you there? I've been dealing with things in my personal life of late. Esszet (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esszet: To remove the blockquote element enclosing the list would be plagiarism. But MOS:BLOCKQUOTE leaves us no other option than to use blockquote when quoting a text consisting of more than one paragraph. The fact it looks like a bulleted list moved too far on the desktop version is just a consequence of the way that one version of the website interprets the wikicode, and therefore to do away with the blockquote simply because of it would be ill-motivated. Paraphrasing is certainly an option, but only if it improves the content as a whole, not just how it appears on just one version of the website. If you can think of a paraphrase that improves the content of the article, great. If not, the quote should stay, as far as I'm concerned. Nardog (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the desktop version is THE most common, I paraphrased...does it look alright to you? Esszet (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esszet: Actually no, more than half of our traffic comes from mobile users. But that's beside the point—the point again is that the blockquote element serves the role of embedding meta information that is more than just aesthetic. And one does not call what you did paraphrasing—you just changed some words without even changing the structures of the sentences and removed the element—that's plagiarism. And I'm at a loss as to what your problem is in the first place. Given your edits both times, you don't seem to have a problem with the article presenting Vaux's analysis in the form of a bullet list. So what actual harm is there in the list looking "moved over too far"? At any rate, try seeking a consensus at Talk:Flapping if you still want to pursue this. Nardog (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nardog. I've seen that you've edited Help:IPA/Italian in the past, so I thought you could help me to understand a thing. Note 5 says: "the n in /nɡ/~/nk/ is a velar [ŋ], and the one in /nf/~/nv/ is the labiodental [ɱ]". I was wondering why in the symbol list does appear ŋ but ɱ doesn't, but I've read in the same note: "but for simplicity, ⟨m⟩ is used here". Why such a distinguo is made here? In Italian a nasal always assimilates to the following consonant, so ŋ can be found just before k and g while ɱ can be found just before f and v. If it's for simplicity, then also ŋ should be transcribed as n (since, unlike in other languages, in Italian this sound can't be found elsewhere). But this makes the transcription less accurate. Then, why doesn't ɱ have its own place in the list? It's weird to me such a different treatment... Could you enlighten me about this issue, please? Fotrion (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fotrion: I don't know, there is a lengthy discussion about it archived here but it's tl;dr for me. As you say, it is inconsistent to use [ŋ] but not [ɱ] when both are allophonic in Italian, although I can also see an argument for the current way because [ɱ] is extremely rare as a phoneme while [ŋ] is relatively common, and [nk] is not impossible in English when spanning syllables. Theoretically it would make more sense to either use [ɱ] too or use [n] in place of [ŋ], but either way we should look into literature rather than decide based on how we feel about it. Why don't you bring it up at Help talk:IPA/Italian? Nardog (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that with this revert action on User talk:John of Reading you've removed not only a misplaced entry by user Seahawks1819, but also the John's answer to a previous entry by User:Foniasin, as well as a header added to the question? --CiaPan (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pls answer here, I'm watching. CiaPan (talk)

@CiaPan: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've now reverted it to the right revision. Nardog (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Actually, I was going to fix it myself, but I thought it might have been deliberate so I've stopped just before submitting my changes. :) Glad to help. --CiaPan (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nardog. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! 5 albert square (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Nardog, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nardog,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Compulsion (2016 film) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compulsion (2016 film) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you deleted my comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Was there a particular reason? Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to delete your comment at all and it was purely accidental. I sincerely apologize. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for restoring it. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this article, it reads that " ⟨ʟ̠⟩ may also represent the pharyngeal or epiglottal lateral approximant, a physically possible sound that is not attested in any language." I removed it on the grounds that the squares for lateral approximants do not go past the uvular column. It makes sense too, that pharyngeals and epiglottals aren't articulated using the tongue; even on the other articles about consonants articulated in those places, it states that "the central-lateral dichotomy does not apply." So how can they be lateral at all?

On the other hand, it seems that there is a well source appending this statement in the article, and I see that you've reinstated it with better wording. May I ask you a favor then? Please update the IPA chart template to reflect this better. I can't because I'm not sure how. And I don't want to do it myself, lest I accidentally make a mistake and make the template look ugly.

Thanks in advance. IPA editor (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IPA editor: Done. While I'm at it, do you mind taking the mention of me off your user page? I don't know you, there are other more prolific and qualified editors responsible for IPA-related articles, and the IPA isn't the only topic I edit articles about. Nardog (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: Done. IPA editor (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IPA editor: Thanks. Just so you know, the establish convention is to add one indentation (made by a colon at the beginning of a line) for each new comment. Also, pinging an editor has no effect if it's on their talk page, because the editor is going to be notified for receiving a message anyway. See Wikipedia:Notifications for more. Nardog (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also did you edit the articles that say that "the central-lateral dichotomy does not apply?" I really hope you did. IPA editor (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IPA editor: I did, you can check the articles for yourself. Nardog (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Help talk:IPA/Italian § Non-native vowels

He asked me why the labiodental m is not used in Help:IPA/Italian, in favor of regular m. I did not know, so I redirected him to you. Do you know, due to your better experience? IPA editor (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did he ask you that if that is not in his edit history? Pardon me for being blunt, but are you another one of the sockpuppets that have been asking that same question for weeks? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbb2: What's a sockpuppet?

OT: He asked me on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Check my talk page there. IPA editor (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address seems to belong to a Slovakian proxy. What you're doing is too transparent. I'd report you but that'd get ignored like most of what I write to Wikipedia admins (that's regardless of whether they have a point or not), so I'll leave it up to Nardog to decide whether he wants to do that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbb2: I don't understand your suspicion. Viviocon and Iuscaogdan have been demonstrated to be different people (unless they're so good at covering their tracks), and as far as I can see nothing about IPA editor's contributions indicates such account abuse. This is no place to speculate, remember WP:AGF and Hanlon's razor. Nardog (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the fact that this guy brings up the same issue as the sockpuppets basically 24 hours after his first edit sufficient? The IP address belongs to a proxy and neither it nor IPA editor have made any kinds of edits to Commons besides to IPA editor's talk page ([9], [10]). Why would the anon write there and not on Wikipedia? How would he know if IPA editor was going to be able to read the message? Also, why would the first edits of IPA editor be to the articles Labiodental nasal, Help:IPA/Italian and Help:IPA/Spanish (see [11])? To me there are just too many instances of strange behaviors (especially the first one) to dismiss any single one of them (which may or may not be a coincidence). To me, the response of the anon from today is just a diversion.

You'll do what you want with it, but to me this is genuine evidence for IPA editor being another sockpuppet. I wouldn't call it speculation, though I have no reason to press the issue further if you are not interested in doing that. Again, this is your call. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IPA editor: If you're still interested, you can see my input at #Help:IPA/Italian right above on this page. I don't know if "Fotrion" (which is a sock of Viviocon) is the same person as the IP on Commons, but my reply serves as a reply to them anyway. Several editors have said basically the same things as I did, e.g. here and here.

Also, whenever you want to notify someone of something at some other place, link to it. A link to Commons can be made by commons: prefix, as in [[commons:User talk:IPA editor]]—see Help:Interwiki linking for more. Or you could have at least just put the bare URL. Nardog (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbb2: @Nardog: I'm not the same person as the IP, if that's what you're looking for. I've never even been to Slovakia. I was only bringing up the labiodental nasal issue because the IP asked me and I didn't know. IPA editor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to reduce "EXPENSIVE" ifexists have caused some error transclusions on Click consonant, Ejective consonant and Implosive consonant. These articles are also populating Category:IPA pages with non-existing IPA audio soundfile. I believe the (false-positive) errors are from Template:IPA link calls from Template:IPA soundbox. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Thank you for notifying me about this. I think I've dealt with the errors in those templates if there were any, and now it seems the errors in those articles are coming from {{ISBN}}. The category addition is and has been the way it is by design, by the way. Nardog (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]