User talk:Kwamikagami/Automated archive

Nomination of Finnic peoples for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finnic peoples, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnic peoples until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Raven

Hello and thank you for your edits on the article about "The Raven". I'm not seeing any visual difference between the symbols for stress vs. unstressed syllables you added to the chart; it seems far too subtle. Are you sure it's an improvement? Would you be willing to allow it to be restored to the previous symbols? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They're standard, but I'll try something else. If that doesn't work, go ahead and revert. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

New surface feature names for Didymos and Dimorphos

Hi,

I didn't find out about this until today, but two months ago, the IAU WGPSN announced 2 new boulder names for Didymos and 6 new crater names for Dimorphos. I don't have much time to edit articles nowadays, so do you mind adding these into their articles? For your convenience, I've compiled a list of the name meanings from the WGPSN website below. Thanks.

Dimorhpos

• Tamboril Crater = Uruguay; barrel-shaped drum used to play the Candombe music, a style created by African slaves.
• Naqqara Crater = Drum of the Near and Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Turkey), and India; pair of clay or metal kettle drums of various sizes played with curved beaters.
• Msondo Crater = Tanzania; tall cylindrically shaped drum for important rituals, which “drives” the dance.
• Bongo Crater = Afro-Cuban; a pair of open bottomed drums played with both hands.
• Marimba Crater = Percussion musical instrument popular in Guatemala and other Central and NW South American countries; wooden bars with pipe or gourd resonators, struck by yarn wrapped or rubber mallets. Originally developed in Africa. Marimba was proclaimed the national instrument of Guatemala in its independence proclamation.
• Bala Crater = West African gourd-resonated xylophone (Guinea, Senegal, Mali).

Didymos

• Gong Saxum = Indonesian name of a percussion musical instrument popular in East and South East Asia, a circular metal disk with a definite or indefinite pitch, which is hung vertically and hit in the center by a soft beater; originated in Ancient China.
• Carillon Saxum = Belgium, Netherlands, France; a percussion instrument of at least 23 cast bronze bells in fixed suspension.

Nrco0e (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the Iridian crater names have still not been approved. (At least my proposal for Arrokoth was accepted! It's not just for 'sky', but recalls the Ouroboros.) — kwami (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very cool! Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about Regular Expressions in JWB

No idea if you're the right person to ask about this, but you could be so I'll ask anyways. I often add IPA link templates to IPA phonological tables (something like [1] or [2]). These edits are horribly tedious, and one of the reasons that I requested AWB (and got it) was to make this tedious process faster. (BTW, I use JWB simply because I don't have a Windows computer.)

However, when trying to replace any {{IPA| with {{IPA link|, IPA templates outside the phonological tables also get converted into IPA link templates. Since I am not at all good at regular expressions or coding, I'd like your help (if you can give it of course) to make a regular expression, that I could put in JWB's RegEx section, that only affects IPA templates in tables.

Thanks for any help you can give. User:PharyngealImplosive7

Hi. I know you can do that in AWB (you can specify that edits should only occur in templates that contain certain text), but last time I checked, you couldn't in JWB, which is less powerful. User:Joeytje50, the creator of JWB, is usually pretty good about answering questions, though. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

elements beyond 172

If it interests you, there's a recent paper that treats the situation once 1s falls into the negative continuum in some detail. In brief, mathematically it wouldn't be the end of the story, although some more work is needed to calculate multi-electron systems and extend the PT further. But also, it seems that it might end up rather as a shaggy dog story, because probably half-lives plummet right after the first island. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Will take a look. — kwami (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of elements, again

Looking at copernicium's WP page again, I'm surprised the pronunciation starting like "copper" isn't there. Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That was my first instinct too, but I haven't heard it pronounced that way, only as "coper". I think I might've even added "copper" in at one point and then removed it as unattested. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. But good to know the reason.

At least, while trying to Google for this, I found the minutes of the relevant IUPAC Division VIII meeting that mentions the symbol controversy (Cp vs Cn). I've updated our article; so, this was still worth looking into for a different reason. (Though it didn't stop them from letting Ts be reused as tennessine when it's already tosyl. Ah well, Ac and Pr also have double meanings, and it's not like there is any other good symbol for 117 when Tn is already thoron.) :) Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wagiman language

Wagiman language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Solar System navmap 2

Template:Solar System navmap 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Gorap language sock?

Any thoughts on who the master of the new editor at Gorap language might be? Their edit summaries suggest that this isn't their first account. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: kwami made me aware about this last week. On a second glance, I'm sure it's User:Eiskrahablo. Check e.g. the opening sentence in the lede of this[3] version of Kangean language. The phrasing is almost identical, also the composition of the infobox (these regional languages do not have "recognized minority" status, nor are they "regulated" in any way by said agency). Should I file an SPI or can you do a DUCK-block? –Austronesier (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier, I think this is a duck case, and the last case on the SPI page is old enough that I don't think a CU would be able to help. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tacuate (disambiguation)

The article Tacuate (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Please use edit summaries, especially when editing templates. See WP:FIES. To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, registered editors can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of the user preferences.

I don't think I've ever seen |image_scale= before; it strikes me as non-standard and confusing, and it looks like the documentation hasn't been updated. If you're going to introduce a non-standard infobox parameter, please document it. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been leaving edit summaries, but that one slipped through. Sometimes I hit the 'enter' key inadvertently before finishing.

I did update the documentation. There was nothing to update: that parameter was not included. I've now added it in.

If you prefer a different name, I'm open to suggestions. "Image_upright" is even more confusing, because the images generally aren't upright. There's been discussion on whether to change "upright" to "scale" in our file params, but I don't know how far it's gotten. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The commonly used |image_upright= matches the long-standing syntax explained in detail at MOS:UPRIGHT, and it makes sense since it is passed to the upright value in Module:InfoboxImage. "upright" is a strange word to have chosen a long time ago, but I think we're stuck with it. Adding a new synonym seems like muddying the waters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkey NATO

Hi, What is your source that Turkey has formally deposited its instruments of ratification in Washington? The State Department website has not been updated to show that. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The ref is in the article. If it seems suspicious, you can bring it up for discussion on the talk page, but I didn't see anything that made me suspicious. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll continue this there, I didn't see that you posted there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Puzzling addition to Bengali alphabet

In this edit to Bengali alphabet you added a sentence fragment with a {{what}} template and without a source. Can you clarify what you meant by the addition? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen that described as a "section mark", but don't know what that means. I was hoping that an edtor who did know would describe it. Perhaps I should've raised it on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find out next time I'm at a suitable library. Meanwhile, I've taken the liberty of moving your question from within the article to Talk:Bengali alphabet. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Zulu Phonology

Hello! I noticed a bunch of weirdness on the phonology section of the Zulu page, and it seems like you were the one who added it (here)? I don't know anything about Zulu but it was weird enough to make me really suspicious.

1. There are a bunch of consonants labeled as "slack-voiced", but they're labeled using the breathy-voiced diacritic in the IPA? There's also a glottal fricative which is in the same row but uses the correct slack-voiced diacritic.

2. The clicks are also described as "slack-voiced", but use a different, again incorrect breathy-voice diacritic (see /ᶢǀʱ/). The table also describes some of them as "ejective" but doesn't explain what that means. Wikipedia lists two types of "ejective clicks", and neither seems to match exactly what's represented in the table.

3. There aren't any sources explicitly cited for the consonants, and the sources I have found don't seem to support a lot of the stuff in the table. I couldn't find evidence of a slack-voice distinction (or breathy-voiced, for that matter) or a velar implosive, while I did find at least one source claiming a tenuis /k/ which isn't mentioned in the table. (This source is Doke's 1986 "Textbook of Zulu Grammar")

After looking at your user page, it seems like you've made a ton of valuable contributions to a bunch of different linguistics pages, and I'm only an amateur. So I assume you've got some good reasons for this. But I'd definitely like to know what they are, because this page badly needs at least some clarification.

Thanks! Geckoarcher (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right that the diacritics don't match the labels exactly. I've had a hard time finding reliable sources, and this table is to some extent a composite. I'll try to find something better. Doke, BTW, is from the 1920s; he was just reprinted in 1986. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I also had a hard time getting good sources, I could tell that the Doke was old but I just couldn't find anything else with a description of the whole phonology! Geckoarcher (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Poulos et al 1998 distinguish breathy-voiced and slack-voiced consonants. But someone forgot to add the diacritics to the consonant table. — kwami (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I made some minor fixes. I suspect Taljaard& Bosch (1998) Handbook of Isizulu might be a good ref, and maybe Mbeje (2005) Zulu Learners' Reference Grammar -- at least, I've checked a dozen others and none of them were worthwhile -- but I haven't been able to locate copies yet. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does Poulos claim breathy or slack-voice? The diacritics in the table still seem to conflict. (Sorry I can't check it myself, the closest copy I could find is a little over 200 miles away...)

Also, is that a "voiced" diacritic on /k/ (aka the same as /g/)? Why is it in the implosive row? Geckoarcher (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Because I haven't moved it. I'd like to confirm what it is. But Poulos does claim it has the same phonation as implosive b. I suppose I should change it to plain [g] -- the point is that it's not breathy voice, which Poulos generally doesn't use a diacritic for. But they do say it's partially voiced. Really, we need additional sources.

Poulos et al. say there's breathy voice and delayed breathy voice. They transcribe the latter with a voiceless ring. It's not audible on the consonant but only on the following vowel. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rashi language

Hi!

The article Haya language says: "Maho (2009) classifies JE221 Rashi as closest to Haya."

You've created Rashi language, which redirects to Haya language.

I don't see "Rashi language" in Ethnologue, or pretty much anywhere else online.

Do you have that Maho book?

I guess it's OK to keep Rashi language as a redirect to Haya if Rashi is a dialect of Haya, but the text should clarify that this is indeed the case. The current text makes the reader think that Rashi is another related language.

Also, it could probably be mentioned on Rashi (disambiguation).

So if you have access to that book, it would be great to clarify that.

Thanks! Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a separate language according to Maho. I rd'd it to Haya because it's not a separate language per Ethnologue, which is the default we go by when we don't have something better. I don't know that Maho is necessarily more reliable. (It's not a book, BTW, but a set of maps for all the Bantu languages.) If we find something, then we should turn Rashi into its own article, but meanwhile it appears to be one of hundreds of cases where the language-dialect distinction is ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"Internal ocean" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Internal ocean has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 8 § Internal ocean until a consensus is reached. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary subdivisions on language maps

Hi Kwamikgami, while editing their respective articles, I noticed that the infobox map for English language and the Lusosphere have unnecessary subdivisions that aren't consistent or aesthetically pleasing as maps for other global languages such as Spanish or French. For instance, on the English map, Australia is subdivided despite having the same status throughout all states and the state/provincial boundaries for the U.S. and Canada make it appear similar to national boundaries. I think it would be better to restore the map previously used, as it is consistent with the other global languages and does not show subdivisions in an unnecessary manner. The Lusosphere map meanwhile shows Brazil being subdivided in an excessive manner similar to Australia on the English map despite the whole nation having just one status and should have subdivisons removed, unlike Canada with English. Thank you for your contributions again to these maps. - Moalli (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding protium

To be honest, it seems to me that "hydrogen" is often used instead when one would expect "protium". Sometimes that happens just in symbols, e.g. D/H ratio, but sometimes also in text (e.g. Arblaster's 2018 Selected Values of the Crystallographic Properties of Elements). On the flip side, normally "proton" is used even when "hydron" is meant.

There's some promising 1930s citations from when the H isotopes were being sorted out that could probably help trace the story. Maybe I'll look into it some other time. It may be related to the old tradition with radioelements, back when different isotopes were getting different names (e.g. thorium vs ionium), that the longest-lived isotope got to be the name of the element. (Though for Fr it was admitted that "actinium K" would not do, so Perey suggested another name for the element.) This has caused lots of confusion with the discoveries of Rn and Pa where the first researchers to discover those atomic number values did not find the most stable isotope. In fact, Rn is actually another case where names for different isotopes still survive today. People still write about "thoron" i.e. radon-220, with "radon" sometimes really meaning "radon-222".

The numerical tradition apparently died with tritium, though likely that fits the chronology of when scientists no longer generally knew ancient Greek. Heavier isotopes are known (though frankly I am tempted to just call them resonances), but nobody talks about "tetartium" or "pemptium". The real extra H isotope of interest to chemistry is muonium. Its nucleus is exactly a muon, so probably it should have been "muium", so that muonium could've fit the particle-antiparticle pattern of quarkonium and positronium. Oh well. (I don't think of positronium as a light H isotope because the two bodies are of the same mass. I'd be persuaded to call muonic helium a heavy H isotope, though, since the sole electron essentially sees a ppnnμ nucleus of total charge 2 − 1 = 1. No opinion yet on exotic atoms with hyperons in the nucleus. Theoretically lambda hypernuclei live long enough to have chemistry, but I think we're a while away from technologically probing this!)

Neither did George Gamow's "tralphium" for ³He catch on, though "helion" is still used for that nucleus as opposed to ⁴He as the alpha particle. Which is a funny situation because it's the opposite of H: for He, the less common isotope got the generic name. Personally, I think ³He deserves its own name and symbol, considering its very different condensed-phase behaviour from ⁴He, but it's probably too late now. :)

P.S. in a way, aren't radiocaesium, radiostrontium, and radioiodine implicitly used as names for the famous fission-product isotopes too? Though I've seen radiostrontium meaning both 89 and 90. Hmm. Double sharp (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Quad(r)ium" is used for 4He. Sorry, don't have time right now to read/answer. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. (But do you have a source for "quad(r)ium" for ⁴He? If I'm only thinking about the nucleus, I might call it an alpha, though.) Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, typo: Quadrium is 4H, not 4He. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Rings of Rhea

I wonder why we still have them linked in {{Solar System}}, when the last word on them seems to be that they don't exist. Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Our article leaves it as an open issue, and as long as that's true I think it's appropriate to have a link. But maybe w a question mark? — kwami (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Orcus's classification

I noticed you've changed Orcus's lead section to state that consensus now disfavors Orcus's status as a dwarf planet, and cited a paper. There are a few issues here, and I'm seeking clarification in case of a misunderstanding.

• To my knowledge, the general consensus on Orcus has not recently changed and still remains very uncertain on the nature of Orcus, its geology, and whether or not it is in hydrostatic equilibrium.

• The paper cited does not discuss Orcus or its status at all.

If there was indeed a recent change in attitudes to Orcus's status that I have missed and/or if there is a better-suited paper for this change, please do let me know! ArkHyena (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There have been a couple papers now listing suspected DP's down to Quaoar and Sedna, and saying that no other known objects appear to qualify. That would include Orcus, Salacia, etc. The authors include ones we used to justify calling Orcus a DP in the first place. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In which case, I believe those additional papers should be added as well to provide a clearer picture for the case of Orcus's classification. I still would argue against stating this represents a full change in consensus, however. There are likely astronomers who still would argue for Orcus's status as a potential dwarf planet, and a 'couple papers' does not necessarily represent astronomical consensus. In my opinion, it would be more transparent to word it as 'growing evidence' against Orcus's dwarf planet status, especially considering that our general understanding of Orcus's properties, as aforementioned, is rather poor. ArkHyena (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There are very few papers that take a position on this, and few astronomers who are looking into it. So a couple papers coming to a different conclusion, based on new evidence, can indeed be a change in consensus, esp. when it includes authors who were part of the prior consensus. Our prior sources were mostly just someone using the phrase 'DP' without giving any particular argument or evidence. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In which case, should we remove Orcus from the gallery on the Dwarf planet page, or does 'nine likeliest dwarf planets' still warrant its inclusion? ArkHyena (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's still among the more likely, with Salacia next. It also has a proportionately large moon, like Pluto. And now there's a paper questioning the DP status of Quaoar. (I don't know how it will be received; it's still in pre-print.)

Personally, I suspect that Haumea and Makemake will turn out not to be DPs based on the strict definition of the phrase, just as Mercury isn't a planet. (Well, it is a planet because it's in the IAU list of planets, but it's not a planet because it doesn't meet the IAU definition of a planet.) But the strict definition isn't actually followed by anyone, any more than the one for 'planet' is; they're just there to make the classification look scientific.

So I think the question should be, not which objects are actually DP's (we can't know), but which would most be useful to our readers to illustrate the concept. I think we could argue for including Salacia just as easily as for excluding Orcus and now possibly Quaoar. The next most likely after Salacia haven't even been named, so from a reader-accessibility POV, that would be a natural place to stop.

But IMO it's a judgement call whether we stop at Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus or Salacia. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd stop at Quaoar for now. The paper arguing that Orcus isn't one thinks that the difference between Sedna/Quaoar/Gonggong and the smaller ones has to do with the chemical evolution, which was kind of the point of having a DP category. Whereas the doubt about Quaoar is whether or not it's in HE, which Mercury proves that nobody actually cares about. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. I'll miss the "anti-Pluto", though. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I miss it too. :) This really seems to be a striking demonstration of the effects of temperature, considering that Interamnia (much further in) might've achieved HE in the past. I guess Sedna might well be nearer the top of the error bar in size. (Though of course, the opposite scenario would make it even more fascinating.) Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I will point out that a recent paper proposes a triaxial shape for Quaoar which is not in equilibrium with its current rotational period (though the paper is still pending publication on A&A). In contrast, as far as I can tell, it still is unclear if Ceres is in HE. Due to these, I believe that strict hydrostatic equilibrium is a poor criterion compared to chemical evolution, as aforementioned. Most astronomers seem to interpret being in hydrostatic equilibrium as a more general state of being gravitationally rounded, anyways. ArkHyena (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We only had one ref that Orcus was a DP, Grundy et al (2019), and they simply used the phrase 'The dwarf planet Orcus'. Grundy is now a co-author of the new papers that exclude Orcus from the roster of DP's, and this time they give a reason. So I think that does indeed trump the earlier ref. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The point of the paper was that Sedna, Quaoar, and Gonggong differ from all smaller TNOs in a way that suggests that the former melted, differentiated, and went through internal chemical evolution, but the latter did not. By the definition, that implies the latter are not dwarfs. Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)