User talk:Nardog

Archives

2008, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

If your message may be of benefit to, or may benefit from, other editors, post it on a more visible talk page.

uh can you not remove langs from Help:IPA?

Hey man i just wanted to say that just because people do not view information doesn't mean that information doesn't deserve to be viewed. Please do not keep information on Wikipedia from being known, as you never know how many people coulde benefit from it. (basically, removing languages from the Help:IPA template is very stupid)((this isnt an insult by the way just wondering why you would do that))(((ok bye))) K1RB1L1TY (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of the IPA keys under Help:IPA/... is to lay out and explain what symbols are used to represent what sounds in each language in transcriptions used in articles linking to those keys. Adding a help page that is not yet linked from articles to {{IPA keys}} is pointless and misleading. If you propose that a new key be used, request an edit to Module:IPA/data. As for Altai and Mandinka, however, there are too few transcriptions (zero and one) to justify creating a key. Nardog (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my honest reaction is bruh K1RB1L1TY (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me to add them then? K1RB1L1TY (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey man i just wanted to apologise for starting so much beef 😅. I figured out how to do this now. Thx for the help, without your message i would be absolutely dumbfounded K1RB1L1TY (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Xavi's Spanish IPA

Helloo, I leave this message as there's one question about Xavi (footballer, born 1980)'s current Spanish IPA. I once remember that the Spanish IPA of his name was written in [ˈtʃaβj eɾˈnandeθ], but found out that the IPA writing is currently [ˈʃaβj eɾˈnandeθ] inside the article. Can you help me find out whether this IPA change is correct or not? As he puts accent in 'X', [ˈtʃaβj] seems to be better writing than [ˈʃaβj] for me. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed from [ˈ(t)ʃaβj] to [ˈʃaβj] on the grounds that "<ʃ> already stands for "either [ʃ] or [tʃ]" in Help:IPA/Spanish" by Sol505000 in this edit. I'm not sure if I concur with the change, since the source does sound affricated even though (IIUC) he's speaking Catalan. Catalan phonology does indicate there's some variation between [tʃ] and [ʃ], so if this is just his accent's realization of [ʃ], it might be sensible to keep [ʃ]. If his accent has word-initial [ʃ] but not in his name, then it's more sensible to transcribe it with [tʃ]. Either way it seems to me it should be using the Catalan key rather than Spanish. Nardog (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see... Writing both IPAs(Spanish and Catalan) will be fine for the reply but maybe more sources are needed for that...;; Thanks for the reply. Have a nice day! --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the change to an affricate. Sol505000 (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{IPA}

Using {IPA} instead of table class is fine, but you're not using {IPA} [in most cases it's already there, but not all.] — kwami (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open front rounded vowel

It should be next to æ on the vowel chatt Isally2 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nardog (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/9aIXjX-BqxY Isally2 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the International Phonetic Association. Wikipedia just reports what's out there. You're barking up the wrong tree. Nardog (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K thx Isally2 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPA for Swedish

Hello, can you please either collaborate with me to edit the IPA for Swedish pahe in a correct way or consider undoing some of your changes? I admit I'm not an expert when it comes to editing Wikipedia, but I'm indeed specialised in phonetics & phonology and did publish a scientific (peer-reviewed) paper about the phonology of Finland Swedish. Eatkgoz (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you're welcome to improve Swedish phonology and/or propose your changes to the key on its talk page. But do you not have more accessible sources than Sciutto (2024)? I can hardly find evidence of the book's existence other than on the publisher's website, which says it's "Non disponibile", not even on WorldCat. Are there not sources in English, Swedish, or Finnish? Nardog (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic accent

Hi Nardog, what's the solution to the hundreds of links to Mid-Atlantic? I see now that I wasn't pressing the "next 500" link at the bottom of this page, but still, aren't hundreds of these due to templates embedded on the ~~dab page~~ individual pages? Do we just leave the "incoming links" tag permanently? Wolfdog (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check these out soon, thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these links are using the meaning of Mid-Atlantic accent as just "generic term for some accent of mixed Anglo-American sound". Is it better to keep those piped to the dab page or just remove the piping altogether? Wolfdog (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove it. In the rare case where linking to the dab page is appropriate (which your example isn't, because it's just one of the senses listed), you could link to Mid-Atlantic accent (disambiguation) to signal to DPL bot and others the target is deliberate (see WP:INTDAB). Nardog (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes to all I could. Thanks for the links. Wolfdog (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HEY

WHY DID YOU IGNORE ME Isally2 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISO tag for Sichuanese

Hi Nardog,

What do we do for something like Sichuanese transcriptions in the IPA template? I don't see anything for it at IETF. Just use [cmn] with 'general' set to 'yes'? — kwami (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could use cmn-CN-SC or cmn-CN-CQ (in which case you don't have to set |generic=). Nardog (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Do you know if there's been any discussion on how to handle dialectical pronunciations in general? We used to have a few dedicated templates. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example or be more specific? Nardog (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles that give the Sichuanese pronunciation of something. The last IPA-xx transclusion I edited where the local pronunciation was not supported by the language's IPA key was at Nederkalix dialect, which has an [ɽ] that's not included for standard Swedish. The same at Kalix. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That used {{IPA-all}}, not a dedicated template. You can use |generic=yes. Nardog (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others had dedicated templates. There were at least {{IPA-endia}}, {{IPA-esdia}}, {{IPA-frdia}}, {{IPA-dedia}}, {{IPA-itdia}}, {{IPA-ptdia}}, all of which were deleted on Jan 09, presumably folding them into the standard-language. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

|generic=yes supersedes them. Nardog (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know if we had any special provision for dialects that were commonly transcribed on WP or were borderline languages like Sichuanese — kwami (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "special provision"? Those "dia" templates linked to Help:IPA and were just aliases for (i.e. redirects to) {{IPA-all}} at least by the time they were replaced and deleted. Nardog (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to distinctly categorize non-standard pronunciations so that they can be more readily reviewed, as those templates did. There are often more problems with reliability, and someone who's only familiar with the standard language might not notice errors. I also vaguely remember the IPA for some dialects being directed to our article on that dialect, rather than to the generic IPA key. — kwami (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you sincerely for your contributions!! :) x RozuRozu • ^tea _cups 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German IPA

Hi Nardog,

I have some questions about the use of secondary stress mark, non-syllabic diacritic, and tie in the German IPA. Be brief, let me give you some examples:

Düsseldorf, [ˈdʏsl̩dɔʁf] or [ˈdʏsl̩ˌdɔʁf]?
der, [deːɐ] or [deːɐ̯]?
kurz, [kʊʁts] or [kʊʁt͡s]?

Looking forward to your answer. --BigBullfrog (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[ˈdʏsl̩dɔʁf] per Duden's Aussprachewörterbuch and De Gruyter's Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch, [deːɐ̯] since it's |r| not |ər|, and [kʊʁts] per the key. I forget how secondary stress patterns in those dictionaries but IIRC there need to be a certain number of syllables after the primary (Sol505000 knows). Nardog (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's [ˈdʏsl̩ˌdɔʁf] because it's a clear compound (phonemically /ˈdʏsəlˌdɔrf/), but the secondary stress sign doesn't really affect the pronunciation, at least not here.

Der normally has a short vowel, so [deɐ̯], often [dɛɐ̯] or even [dɐ]. [deːɐ̯] sounds exaggerated when you're not stressing the article. Sol505000 (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sol505000: But I see that "ai", "au" and "eu" are transcribed as [aɪ], [aʊ] and [ɔʏ], so is non-syllabic diacritic only used for [ɐ]? --BigBullfrog (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably because you can't (normally) have [a] and [ɔ] next to another vowel, save for some rare loanwords, or in hiatus (even NSG doesn't always use the glottal stop). Sol505000 (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite OED needs modifying

Hello Nardog, I believe you are involved with {{Cite OED}}. I made a comment in the template's Talk a while ago that the OED site now gives basic information without login, so the disclaimer "Subscription or participating institution membership required" isn't entirely correct; something like "Basic information; subscription or participating institution membership required for full details" would be better. I'm not really up to doing this. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the template talk. Nardog (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GDJackAttack1

Please pay attention to the contributions of user GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs · logs · page moves). He has added many weird and wrong IPAs (e.g. Special:Diff/1276571313, Special:Diff/1276384317, Special:Diff/1286191218). I suspect he is a vandal or violates WP:CIR. --BigBullfrog (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to vandalize, and if I am, I'm sorry. I just thought that it would be helpful to add IPA pronunciation based on the Help:IPA charts and I guess I was wrong. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Unsigned2

Template:Unsigned2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Unsigned. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian pronunciation

Hi!

I've noticed a lot of IPA being added on English articles about Norwegian stuff recently, which is nice - however:

- I often see small mistakes here and there (I've just now updated the IPA on the page for Nynorsk, as the tone was wrong - I have seen this elsewhere too) - The pronunciations given are generally based on so-called Standard East Norwegian, which is not actually official or standard, and to which I imagine many Norwegians would object (given that Norway is a relatively dialect-friendly country).

I suggest that local pronunciations should always be prioritized, and if there is some kind of wikipedian guideline or precedent which says that Standard East Norwegian indeed should be included, I would like to know.

(Also, excuse me if I'm doing something wrong here - I'm not used to editing wikipedia, as I'm sure you can see!) 80.115.243.183 (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Not sure if there is a userpage barnstar, but I enjoyed reading yours. Polygnotus (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#We_are_looking_for_a_pilot_for_our_new_feature,_Favourite_Templates

Please maintain a higher level of WP:CIVILITY when talking to WMF employees. Calling people dishonest when they are doing their job is not acceptable. There are more constructive ways of engaging with WMF folks. Sohom (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring this back up and chime in on this discussion uninvited, but I've started to notice some anti-patterns across human interactions and thought some detailed pointers might help us all get along better. I hope this is met with an open mind; I've had some of the same difficulties myself.

This is such a bonkers response I'm in disbelief. I mean, do you even know what a beta feature means? Or the word "cannot"? The whole point of a beta feature is to make it available to everyone who opts it in, in preparation to release onto everyone by default. Which is the same goal as pilot wikis, the difference being whole wikis opting in vs individual users opting in.

At face value, your response suggests you do not understand what "beta" or "pilot" or "testers" or "can" mean. I doubt the foundation would hire such a person (or people, assuming you're just the messenger), so the AGF interpretation is that you're being dishonest.

"You're being dishonest" is not assuming good faith; it's pretty much the opposite. Using AGF as a reason to pick that over incompetence comes off as passive-aggressive, given that "do you even know what a beta feature means?" is clearly questioning competence. A conclusion based on an assumption of good faith would be that there is still some sort of misunderstanding or missing information that needs to be cleared up to make the motive, actions, and comments of the other person start making sense. (I've seen this happen a lot when members of the public are dealing with government projects required to seek their ill-informed input, or in this case an NGO project.) From later in the conversation, that missing information appears to have been revealed as "it would require too much of a rewrite of code".

When concluding that someone is incompetent or a dishonest PR flak, blurting out that conclusion to their face is usually unproductive. If more information is revealed later which explains their actions as legitimate, it makes the speaker look either foolish or gratuitously abrasive, and it makes a competent, honest employee instantly dislike them and a lot less likely to listen to their concerns or seek their input in the future if it can be avoided. Even in cases where it turns out to be true, it still generates negative feelings and does not make anyone more competent or less bound to their PR obligations or advance the goal of improving the outcome. This is what AGF is trying to save us from. If we need to point out a mistake or an inadequate explanation, it's much better to do that by discussing the situation in way that is polite and respects the dignity of the people who you are trying to convince to take a certain action. If we can't affirmatively make people feel good about themselves (after all, everyone here is working toward improving Wikipedia, and it's exciting people are actually putting engineering work into improving template use), we can just confine our comments to the practical questions at hand and not the people involved. In this case, though, it's pretty unfathomable that people were being incompetent as opposed to simply making a judgement call which we may or may not agree with.

It's often helpful to keep in mind that human communication is ambiguous and multi-layered. For example, when someone says "I can't put up with another hour of this music", that does not mean they will physically die if they don't leave, even though that is a logical literal reading of their words. They are just expressing a strong desire to leave. "We cannot make this feature into a Beta feature" does not mean doing so would break the laws of physics or even that it is unsupported in software. It just means the justification for taking that course of action is unspecified. Once the justification is known, the strength of the conclusion can of course be questioned. But in the meantime, there's the danger that people will respond "it can be done" and talk past each other, or assume that because they don't know what the justification is that it doesn't exist, and come to incorrect and potentially alarming conclusions. Sometimes people don't have the authority or budget to implement a reasonable suggestion, or there may be complicated technical reasons for not implementing it. It's possible they think the potential reasons for not implementing are obvious (it's hard to predict someone else's state of mind if it requires un-knowing things you know) or just not worth debating because they won't change the outcome of the discussion.

I do agree the conversation would have been a lot more productive if this employee had more clearly explained what they were asking up front, and had also given a clearer and more detailed reason why they weren't doing this as a beta feature when that suggestion was first made. But one it's happened, I think complaining this employee of said "can't" when they should have said "won't" is counterproductive. It's better just to thank them for the clarification and proceed on the basis of the new information. Saying someone is "feeding you what to say" seems pretty cynical - it denies them the dignity of even the polite fiction of personal workplace autonomy - and also (in this case incorrectly) assumes they are not in the loop.

Continuing to accuse them of being dishonest because their explanation changed will be perceived as incivility, and it's definitely a violation of AGF. I can see the logical justification for concluding "that explanation is different from the one you gave earlier", but it requires an unreasonably narrow interpretation of "we can't make this a beta feature". It's obvious to me that the explanation they had in mind was "we can't make this a beta feature because it would require rewriting too much code" (compared to the risk reduction of a slower rollout, which they obviously think is small if they have already deployed this feature on entire wikis) the entire time, even if they didn't say the whole thing out loud. So of course asking them to admit they changed their explanation - aside from being an unproductive line of conversation because it deals with participants and not the practical questions at hand - is going to be very frustrating for them, because from their perspective they did no such thing.

A good software analogy is the robustness principle: if people are tolerant of ambiguity in what they hear, and try to be unambiguous when they speak, communication will be more efficient and people will have fewer occasions to get mad at each other and uncooperative for no good reason. -- Beland (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in IPA RfC?

Hello, could you please reply in the Template talk:IPA rfc? Tbh I'm a little frustrated that you've been seemingly ignoring me for the last few weeks on that page :/. Feel like this edit comment from you was unnecessarily combative [1], and I tried keeping it diplomatic and polite from then on but eventually just got met with stonewalling. Kinda disappointing experience working with you; I've been trying to do this in good faith while keeping it professional, don't feel like anything I did merited the abrasiveness I got. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it, thanks for your patience. Nardog (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books are books

This is getting pretty ridiculous. Books should be cited as books. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: If "Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik" is the title of the series, then the title of the book should be input as "Band 65 — 2009", and "The origin of the Vestjysk stød" should be in |chapter=. Nardog (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message to Nardog

Hey, I've just taken a crack at reorganizing Template:English language sidebar—what do you think? Cheers, thanks especially for your hard work on here. Remsense 🌈 论 00:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Nardog. Per your request, your account has been granted "checkuser-temporary-account". You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German IPA 2

Hi Nardog,

I still have some questions about German IPA:

What is the pronunciation of "Luise"? [luˈiːzə] or [lʊˈiːzə]?
Where is the primary stress in "Oberxxx", "Unterxxx" and "Niederxxx"? Why is the primary stress placed before "weißbach" in this pronunciation () for Oberweißbach?
In Swiss Standard German, is the suffix "-kon" (e.g. Dietikon) pronounced [kɔn] or [koːn]?
In Swiss Standard German, is the suffix "-wil" (e.g. Hinwil) pronounced [vɪl] or [viːl]?

Looking forward to your answer. --BigBullfrog (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from an expert on German, but per Duden and de Gruyer: [luˈiːzə], [oːbɐˈvaɪsbax], [-koːn], [-viːl]. Nardog (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]