User talk:Kwamikagami/Automated archive

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year
	Happy New Year! May 2026 be your best year yet! BD2412 T 00:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Kwamikagami. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. 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 must 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 one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

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. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Australian families

Hey,

I just want to say I'm a huge fan of your maps of Australian language families. Recently I created Proto-Australian language and I was thinking of including a map that sets out the higher-level classifications for families argued by Harvey and Mailhammer in their recent book. I'd be willing to create a map like that myself but I wouldn't really know where to start. Would you be willing to offer me some advice or tips on how you created those files? Thank you and thanks again for your work in creating the maps. Ikuzaf (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I just re-use the existing maps. I'd find one that has the borders you want and not too many colored areas you'd need to change, and adjust it in an image editor. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Doke's clicks

Sorry to bother, looking for some small clarification.

For Doke's palatal clicks:

• are ⟨🡣 🡡⟩ the "correct" forms, or are they just as much approximate substitutions as ⟨ↆ ꙟ⟩ are?
• if they are equally as valid/invalid, on click letter, would it be better to display ⟨ↆ⟩ (inverted ⟨ↆ⟩ via html) than ⟨ꙟ⟩? Alternatively, would it be best to inline display your images ⟨ ⟩?

In a similar sense, for the retroflex clicks:

• would ⟨ψ⟩ (inverted ⟨ψ⟩ via html) be any more preferable than ⟨⫛⟩? or inline images ⟨ ⟩?

~ oklopfer (💬) 01:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

They're all just graphic approximations/hacks. There is no turned psi in Unicode. As for the palatals, although they look like arrows, I suspect they may be Latin 'v' with a stroke. Even if they are arrows, it's doubtful that ⟨🡣 🡡⟩ would be a good approximation across fonts. ↆ is not a good either because it may be flat on the bottom. Really to display them correctly we would need a font that includes them in its PUA and to have that font embedded in the page. For most of the nasals we have no good approximation at all. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami just an FYI, I am about to go through the click letter page and change the non-citation refs to {{efn}}. Letting you know so we don't clash in editing. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've stopped for now. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, should be all good now! ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Back for more - Sundevall (1855/56) Table I clearly marks the distinction of his click letters as typical vs script, not as capital vs lowercase; the same distinction can be seen for all of the other consonants, too, which are evidently all lowercase. Do you have a later ref that shows he changed this distinction, at least for the clicks, to capital vs lowercase? ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that. He lists four sets of letters: an uppercase set and a lowercase set, first in roman then in italic. He may make a phonetic distinction between roman and italic, as was common at the time, but that doesn't affect casing. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

My bad; it took me about 15 tries to see the italic capitals with top swashes in Table III. Sorry to bother and thank you for your patience. ~ oklopfer (💬) 05:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

"Neo-Sanskrit" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Neo-Sanskrit 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/2026 January 25 § Neo-Sanskrit until a consensus is reached. Asteramellus (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kwamikagami. Thank you for your work on Koreguaje. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:GNG. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't create or work on the article. — kwami (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei This article was written by me. I intend to expand upon it when I can find good sources on the article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami - Thank you for your response. I understand that there may be other sources here, but my concern is that the article as it stands is not up to the standards for the encyclopedia. If you think it may be a while, would you mind if I move the article to draft and you could republish it when it is ready? Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't create the article. Maybe you could ask the person who did. — kwami (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei The article has now been incubated as a userspace draft. I intend to improve the article and introduce more sources. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b - Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Máku language of Auari/Jukude

Are you planning to move the Máku language of Auari article to Jukude language? I am curious as to why you are changing links to the page. I would support the move for the same reasons as to why Wirö language should not be moved, as the term "Máku" and other spelings is quite ambiguous. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I changed the name in our articles to the unambiguous 'Jukude' and would like to move the article.

However, it was moved from Jukude to Maku in 2023 because that's the most common name in the lit. If you want to request a move, by analogy with Wirö, then I will support it. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem with Jukude is that no academic source notes it as even a synonym, only as the native self-designation. If sources at least mentioned Jukude as an alternative name, I would request a move. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kwamikagami. Thank you for your work on Stodsde. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please add more sources and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. I will be moving it to draft. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Not my article. I only created it as a rd. This is the 2nd time you've done this. Perhaps you should check who actually created it? — kwami (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Damin’s “qx”

Hello there,

Firstly, just wanted to say thanks for keeping the Damin page updated. But one thing I noticed you added was the uvular affricate "qx" [qχ]. I've looked at some of the sources talking about Damin's phonology and nothing popped up mentioning it. I don't want to remove it right away because you must have gotten it from somewhere, so I wanted to ask if you could potentially provide a source for this sound please.

Thank you! ICommandeth (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right that it's not in Hale & Nash 1997 Lardil and Damin Phonotactics, but there are a few additional consonants in one of the other sources. I just got McKnight through ILL, but it doesn't list the inventory. Let me retrace my steps. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How frustrating! I confirmed with the description that it was uvular and an affricate, but was in a rush and thought I could fill out the citation later. Now I can't find it. I've been through most of my Lardil stuff and the refs here. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

(Now cited) — kwami (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Module:IPAc-en/phonemes

See WP:TPEDISPUTE. Your edit has been disputed, so it should not be reinstated without established consensus. Nardog (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

What is your dispute? You objected that we should not introduce a distinction, but this does not introduce a distinction. If it is /ə/ in both RP according to the OED, and in GA according to MW, why should we not transcribe it as /ə/? — kwami (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The outcome of RfC rejected changing the output of ᵻ. So it should not be overridden without a similar consultation.

Do you have links or page numbers for your claims about OED and MW? Nardog (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Here for the OED. MW only has one reduced vowel, /ə/, so they have /ə/ in common. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say their /ᵻ/ is /ə/? Nardog (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Bottom right. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Where? You mean "(/ɪ/-/ə/)"? Or "RDP’s novel approach to vowel qualities falling on the continuum between /ɪ/ and /ə/ and between /ə/ and /ʊ/ has been adopted into OED, using the symbols /ᵻ/ and /ᵿ/ respectively."? Neither say "/ᵻ/ is actually /ə/".

And if /ᵻ/ was /ə/, why does the OED need /ᵻ/ at all in the first place? Why does it need to transcribe e.g. addition and edition differently if they consist of exactly the same sequence of phonemes in their model of RP? Nardog (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

They mean the same thing. Note also that both edition and addition are "uh-DISH-uhn" in RP respelling.

We decided we're not going to support this distinction on WP. RP and GA agree on the /ə/ range of the variation, so for a generic transcription that's what we should use: it's correct for both RP and GA. Currently it's converted to /ɪ/, which is wrong for GA and only sometimes right for RP. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fiji, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Voiceless bilabial trill

I'm curious why you added the para-IPA ⟨ᴘ⟩ to the infobox; we have generally been keeping the infobox symbols to IPA-supported only, and listing para-IPAs in the body if significant/used enough to warrant mentions, beyond the obsolete/nonstandard IPA page.

I had previously reverted some TAs who had added it, and for the same reasoning have kept the Bantuist symbols for the labiodental plosives out of those boxes, for example. I had also understood that as the reason we removed the barred symbols for the near-close central vowels + the compressed close central vowel.

Do we have good reason to include it? I think it would be preferable not to set a precedent that has a substantiated slippery slope. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I'll revert myself. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Much obliged, cheers ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Kwatl

Kwatl language's spanish version es:Idioma ku'ahl should be added. Also, as I understood Kwatl is just Kumeyaay or Paipai in Mexico, right? Қатысушы Апельсин (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"Seven days of the week" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Seven days of the week 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/2026 February 25 § Seven days of the week until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

A note about your expansion of Irunmọlẹ

Hi Kwamikagami. Thank you for your work on Irunmọlẹ. Another editor, Laterthanyouthink, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Well done! It just needs a couple more citations for some of the content.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Laterthanyouthink}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you should thank/contact the person who expanded the article. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"Cuba language" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cuba language 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/2026 February 27 § Cuba language until a consensus is reached. ltbdl (pull) 06:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Retroflex implosive

Yes, ⟨ᶑ⟩ is in the IPA handbook; but on pages 166 and 179 it states for the letter Not explicitly IPA approved. That is what I meant by it is technically also para-IPA. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It also says it's 'implicit' in the IPA, rather than the creation of an external source. Borderline case maybe. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Barred vocoids, "close rounding"

The combining stroke diacritic does not render correctly on many fonts (and often bleeds over to the space or next letters). This is why I switched to strikethrough on those displays.

For "close rounding", I'm not sure why the revert. Handbook p. 13:

So, for example, of the close vowels [i y ɯ u], [i ɯ] have spread lips and [y u] have closely rounded lips; and of the open-mid vowels [ɛ œ ʌ ɔ], [ɛ ʌ] have slightly spread lips and [œ ɔ] have open rounding. A further two secondary cardinal vowels are defined; these are the close central vowels [ɨ] (spread) and [ʉ] (close rounded).

It's quite clear from this that "open rounding" is classified in direct contrast with "close rounding". ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Also note that wherever you are moving spread and neutral to, the redirect spread vowel will need to be repointed. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm writing a section on the clines defined by the IPA. We need to be clear when we're talking about vowels and when we're talking about symbols for those vowels -- the two concepts were getting jumbled up.

As for the barred letters, strikethrough will fail with copy and paste and so is not acceptable. As the IPA warning at the top of the page notes, some symbols may not display properly if the reader does not have adequate font support. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm writing a section on the clines defined by the IPA. We need to be clear when we're talking about vowels and when we're talking about symbols for those vowels -- the two concepts were getting jumbled up.

So just to clarify, this will include both spread vs. neutral unrounded and close vs. open rounded? If so, I agree this is better. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, summarizing what the Handbook says on pp 12-13. I think we need to clarify that we're speaking of clines rather than oppositions, and that this should be up front as the 1st section after the lead. — kwami (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

noting this here to avoid edit conflict, but FYI the handbook source for Japanese says /w/ has "very slight or no rounding (except after /o/)", while in the paragraph after says "/u/, resembling [ɯ] auditorily, has compressed lips, so that it is unrounded but without spreading […] The slit between the lips may be very narrow vertically and is generally much shorter in the horizontal plane than for [i]."

So in my opinion, I don't think it's accurate to make the jump that /w/ is compressed according to that source, since Okada is rather explicit about /u/'s compression in the following paragraph, and evidently had the terminology to call /w/ as such if it was. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix. Though he does say /u/ is unrounded, so perhaps he meant the same for /w/. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go through it later and see if anything else needs copyediting. Much appreciated. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was too heavy on protrusion vs compression. The last time I went over the article, that was my only focus, as that's what I was working on elsewhere and wanted to give people background on. But it made for a rather lopsided article, and intervening edits have only ameliorated that a little. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the IPA pairs [ɶ] with [ɒ] in rounding even though it's paired with [a] on the chart. That's consistent with a vowel triangle where [a] is the only open vowel, and the others are near-open, with a [æ • ɶ] pairing. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by paired with [ɒ] in rounding (just that they are both secondary cardinals, while [a ɑ] are primary cardinals?), but cardinal [ɶ] is placed where it is for the sake of completeness and balance in the quadrilateral more than anything else. It's often simply analyzed as a lowered /œ/, where in most analyses which include both, is phonetically raised to a more mid position than cardinal [œ]. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean now that I am reading what you wrote. Still, the IPA definition of cardinal [ɶ] is seemingly useless. I went through the sources for that page and none of them had a phonetically close front vowel. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please don't improperly mark reversions of non-vandalism edits as minor, even if you believe "No, this editor should be discussing, so any reverts against them are minor", "This editor is edit warring, so it's vandalism", or "I'm removing this content because it needs evidence of it, so removing is a minor edit". It's a disputed edit also.

So why would this be correct? Are you trying to hide the dispute? Or is it that you think they are uncontroversial?

Examples: - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 18:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm following the pattern of automated reversion, which marks them as minor. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

And also, why remove the hatnote I added? Even @Oklopfer is curious. If this was done for this reason, is that hounding? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 21:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Páez laterals

Sorry for filling up your talk page so much.

I noticed your addition of Páez to [ʎ̮], so I went and checked out the sources to see a little more what they showed. None of the three cited in the phonology section seem to regard the laterals as flaps; the SAPhon and Gerdel (1973) examples both mark them as [l lʲ], and Rojas Curieux (2013) marks them as [l ʎ]. Is there something in the text that I am missing which regards them as short enough to be considered flaps?

Gerdel seems to be marking the laterals with carons (they do not look any different than ⟨š ž⟩), so are they not just being noted as phonetically postalveolar? ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The caron in Americanist notation means that they're flaps, and she specifically calls them "vibrantes". — kwami (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I overlooked the vibrant classing. Of course that could also mean they are lateral trills ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I believe that would require a tilde. :) — kwami (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Stop trying to push a colonial narrative of the Dagbanli language. You're not a native speaker

Hi,

You reverted my edit of Dagbanli from Dagbani. What is your reasoning behind it? -Masssly (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:COMMON. It's not a colonial narrative, it's just English. (And actually is less anglicized than names like "German" or "Greek".) It's not the purpose of WP to fix the language, or to push any particular political POV. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Again. Stop reverting my edits without discussion. You have no understanding of the langauge or context. Communities are trying to break off the shackles of colonial vestiges in their language. If you have an issue about how we want to represent our languege (of which you have no stake in), then go open a proper discussion. --Masssly (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Read WP:BOLD: You are proposing the changes, so you need to get consensus for your changes. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello Kwamikagami, it appears that you have marked Angami language as a copyright violation using the {{Copyvio}} template, but did not list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please make sure to follow the steps denoted in the "How to list an article" section. I have listed it for you, but please remember to do so if you encounter complex violations that need to be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems in future. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Nisga'a Highway

Is at WP:RMTR. Does your preferred spelling of Nisga'a (with a bar under the g) have a source? EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the signs along the highway. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

How about a printed or online publication that could be linked in an article? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The [signs] at Terrace for turning onto the highway do not have the underbar. I'm not sure where you were seeing that, but it is at the very least not done consistently. We definitely need something more definite to reflect that choice. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 18:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I did a Google image search, and the first hit had the correct letter.

There's also this on the nation's website.

But of course also other signs that don't -- it's not uncommon for diacritics to be left off road signs. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The Nisgaʻa nation using it is much more compelling. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 23:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Giamina

Hi Kwamikagami.

I'm doing the new page patrol assessment of Giamina language and I wanted to check something. Does Giamina get at least a couple of pages in the modern source you link by Golla? Also, why do you give Omomil as an alternative name? It doesn't appear sourced to anywhere (please ping if you answer) Boynamedsue (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: you might want to ask the author of the article, @Kepler-1229b:.

Normally a language is considered inherently notable. The only question here would be whether it was actually a distinct language. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue Golla (2011) cites Omomil as an alternative name for Giamina. It also receives a chapter a few pages' worth of coverage in the aforementioned book. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

In any case, Golla reports as a distinct language without mentioning possible dialectal affiliation, so I believe it is beneficial to have a separate article on the matter. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Kepler.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Apoligies Kwami.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter

Seeing that you are one of the most active editors of the moons of Jupiter article, you might work on improving it if you have the time. Векочел (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Mahakiranti languages has been nominated for merging

Category:Mahakiranti languages has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pre-Arawakan languages of the Greater Antilles

The article Pre-Arawakan languages of the Greater Antilles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the 5 sources mention the topic.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Oceania

Hey, it has been some time since then, but I don't see the reason why you removed New Zealand in the definition of Oceania. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=391424724 WikiPate (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It's covered by Polynesia. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I like the new wording! WikiPate (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Some authors mentioning that Haumea might not be a dwarf

Here. As noted by these authors, this geometry is incompatible with a Jacobi ellipsoid, i.e. a homogeneous ellipsoid in hydrostatic equilibrium. This discrepancy implies that either rigid-body forces provide significant support against self-gravity, or Haumea has undergone differentiation and is thus heterogeneous. The former possibility questions Haumea’s classification as a dwarf planet, as hydrostatic equilibrium is a requirement. Therefore, a detailed examination of its equilibrium figure may help refining the distinction between hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic bodies ... Unlike previous works, we show that, if Haumea has a hydrostatic shape, then it may deviate significantly from an ellipsoid and could even be pinched at the end of its equatorial major axis, indicating a state of critical rotation. Finally, we question whether observational data from May 2026 can discriminate an ellipsoid from a pinched figure. There's an occultation on 4 May 2026, apparently!

BTW, did we ever update the Salacia situation based on this 2025 article about its mutual tidal locking with Actaea? (It classifies it with Orcus, Huya(!), Varda, Uni, and G!kun as intermediate cases.) Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's an odd statement. If Haumea were in HE, we would expect it to be differentiated. So I wouldn't take that as evidence that it's not a DP.

As HE objects spin faster, they go from triaxial to pear-shaped. I don't know if we cover that it any of our articles; we should, and if we already do, we probably need more links to it from the astro and HE articles.

(I forget the mathematical term for pear-shaped.)

I don't know if we accurately use the word 'Jacobi' in our articles. It assumes uniform density, whereas DPs are presumably differentiated and so not Jacobi ellipsoids.

I haven't seen the 2025 Salacia article, so don´t know if we've incorporated it. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

"Oblate spheroid" is the usual term. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 04:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

No, we're beyond that. As spin increases, we go from sphere to oblate spheroid to triaxial ellipsoid to pear-shaped, where the two ends of the long axis don´t have the same volume. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Piriform? Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Though it looks like just 'pear-shaped' is pretty common.

And I think we probably have ovoid before piriform. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ways to improve Magiana language

Hello, Kwamikagami,

Thank you for creating Magiana language.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

please stop removing this tag. There is clearly an issue around notability that we are discussing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Boynamedsue}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the page history so you know what you're talking about. For one, I didn't create the article.

Also, in English, the phrases "keep doing X" and "stop doing X" mean that the doing of X is an ongoing or repeated event. They are inappropriate for describing a single event. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I see you did not create the page. The notification is an automated process, as you created the redirect in 2016, our page curation tools are notifying you not the actual creator. I missed the edit by Kepler removing the tag, given both names begin with K my brain filled in the blank and assumed it was you. If you both still feel there should be no tag on the page, there would be a consensus against its presence now, so you would be entitled to remove it.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave it as-is. I think our notability criteria could use some discussion, though IMO the data in the article should not be merged into something broader. — kwami (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I second this. I remember in a discussion somewhere it was said that languages have inherent notability, but it has been some time now, and I have forgotten where it was. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Magiana language

Hi Kwamikigami. I was reviewing Magiana language as part of my work for New Pages Patrol. The article has only a Glottolog source which only states that two 18th century accounts of a language with this name exist. That is not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG and a search on googlescholar reveals nothing. Normal practice in this case is to draftify and allow the author to find more sources. I notice you have reverted this draftification. Is this because you have access to sources which might allow this page to pass WP:GNG? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You also claimed it was OR, without saying why you thought that. Nothing on the talk page that could be addressed. Everything there is cited, so where's the OR?

Generally any language is considered notable. It wouldn't be notable if there weren't evidence that the language exists, but we usually accept Glottolog as a reliable 2ary source. Any reason to think that this is an exception? — kwami (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

In my view, any sentence in wikivoice sourced to an 18th century text is original research. What policy are you basing your suggestion that languages are exempt from WP:GNG on? In my view, extinct languages are clearly required to pass the criteria of having multiple sources that give WP:SIGCOV. I am also not convinced that Glottolog gives significant coverage here. More sourcing would resolve this.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow. How is that different from any other text reported in wikivoice? — kwami (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I've left the OR tag off for now, but if you are taking a primary source written in 1800 and using claims from it, that for me is original research. You are evaluating and analysing text and deciding what it means. But a much more important question is whether there is a basis in policy for saying languages don't need to pass WP:GNG. If I've missed something, it'd be great if you could tell me. It would likely avoid a deletion discussion.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Our working consensus for decades has been that natural languages are inherently notable. This doesn't cover cases where people are presumed to have spoken their own language but we don't know what it is or have essentially no data; in such cases it can be covered in the ethno article. Nor does it cover conlang projects.

I don't know if this is written down somewhere, but every once in a while someone comes by and tags a bunch of language articles for deletion, and the RFD fails.

Obviously at some point we won't have enough info for an encyclopedia article. I don't know where the line should be drawn. In this case we have a classification and some recorded vocabulary that people could use for historical reconstruction, which AFAICT so far has been enough. An ISO or Glottolog code has been accepted as sufficient evidence to believe the language existed, unless we have a RS that they are in error.

— kwami (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I probably will nominate it for deletion and we can check. This is obviously an edge case, an extremely poorly attested language with only one reliable source that probably doesn't give WP:SIGCOV. If it does work out as you say, then there is probably a need for a specific policy that states this. There are definitely no more sources to your knowledge? No commentary on the language by the editors of the modern edition of the 1795 account of the journey through Moxos?Boynamedsue (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the sources; that would be @Kepler-1229b:.

Palau & Saiz (1989) isn't a republication, but their account of several mss. The OCR finds two mentions:

El pueblo de Reyes de Moxos se compone de varías naciones, que se distinguen con los nombres de Maracane, Ramanos, Chíriva, Magíana, Chúmana, Pacabara y Mositene. Todas tienen su lengua particular, pero la Maracane es en el día la general en todo el pueblo

and the vocab list already cited.

Going off Glottolog, there is also Hervás (1800). This is evidently covered in

Alain Fabre (1998) Manual de las lenguas indígenas sudamericanas, I-II (LINCOM Handbooks in Linguistics 4-5). München: Lincom.

but I don't know if I can get access to it. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You definitely need to buy a physical copy of the latter. I do remember checking around for some sources but didn't find any. The Enciclopédia das línguas Arawak might also be a good place to look; unfortunately I also have no access to it. The existence of the language is acknowledged by at least the Glottolog team and Swintha Danielsen, who has done work on Bolivian Arawakan languages (e.g. Paunaka, Baure) and is credited with bringing the language to Glottolog's attention. Interestingly, a paper by Danielsen on extinct Bolivian Arawakan languages seemingly neglects any mention of Magiana. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to Palau and Saiz, as evidenced by the bibliography giving two publishing dates 1794 and 1989 it is mainly a republishing of a primary source, so anything in it which is not the commentary of the editors (Palau and Saiz) is not relevant to our discussion. It would seem there is no secondary coverage of the language there. The Hervas 1800 source is primary, so of no use per WP:GNG, and as the reference is limited to a single page, may not give WP:SIGCOV. Kepler-1229b, the reference to Danielsen merely states she discussed it, not what her opinion of it is or that she has published on it and so I don't think it enters into our consideration.

Kwamikagami, where are you getting the Fabre source from? On the Glottolog page, it links to a different book by Fabre "Diccionario Etnolingüístico y Guía Bibliográfica de los Pueblos Indígenas Sudamericanos".Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Glottolog also implicitly cites Majena language as identical to Magiana, citing page 249 of Hervas (1800), which makes mention of a "Majiena" or "Maxiena" language. No other languages mentioned on page 249 are even a remotely close match. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just checked said Diccionario's online version, and it doesn't mention Magiana, but the bibliography does mention the text edited by Palau, which is, I suspect, why it is linked to the Glottolog page.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Paacaguara

Is the table originally at Magiana language (Spanish gloss English gloss Magíana bueno good shiomá malo bad shiomallama el padre father papá la madre mother kay el hermano brother nomasqui uno one huestiche dos two heravetá) originally of the Pacaguara language? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I assumed it was paca1246 Pacahuara. The digits match Proto-Panoan *wɨsti and *ɽaβɨt.

But there's more recent data on that language so I didn't move the table. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Magiana language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magiana language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magiana language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of N'Ko language

The article N'Ko language has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article called "N'ko script" has all the same information, and more. This article is redundant.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Moons of Haumea

Moons of Haumea 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. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Benue–Congo languages

You recently made an addition to the infobox for this article but there was a misnumbering – two languages were given the child2 parameter. I believe that it was just a typo and have renumbered them. Since you have much more knowledge in this area (I have none), can you check that I did it correctly? Thanks. Ira Leviton (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, that's correct. — kwami (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Astur-Leonese languages has been nominated for renaming

Category:Astur-Leonese languages has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)