Talk:G

Content deleted

It appears as if a lot of the content for this page was deleted (perhaps by accident?) on June 3, 2004 by IP 217.44.58.76. Several edits have been made since. What's the best way to revert back? Dmeranda 08:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Italic text== History of G is misleading == The current entry is misleading. It makes it seem as though the letter G is simply a spin-off of C. But the symbol "C" had the /g/ sound long before the /k/ and /s/ sounds were tacked on to it by the romans.

The real history of our G begins with the phonetician symbol, "Gimme l" (camel) which looked like a camel's hump. Gimmes stood for the /g/ sound. The Greeks turned Gimme into Gamma, looking like a backward "7" and it still had only the /g/ sound. The Romans took Gamma and made C, which looked like "<" and still had the /g/ sound. The romans added the /k/ and /s/ sounds to this symbol. Later on, C was allowed to retain it's newer /k/ and /s/ sounds and the symbol G was created for the /g/ sound. (ghtdrgtrtgvrbgtrfgbvguygwks) U slept Romans wrong BIG DUMB NOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fuck'n idiots nothing but worthless idiots NOOBS.......................................... 

The part in the current article about "z" is confusing. Until G was invented, Z, with a /z/ sound was the seventh letter of the roman alphabet. The new G was given the seventh slot and Z was bumped to the end of the line. There is no phonetic relationship between G and Z.

"But the symbol "C" had the /g/ sound long before the /k/ and /s/ sounds were tacked on to it by the romans."

Huh? C was never pronounced [s] by the Romans ... that's what S was for. It was always [k].24.235.159.34 04:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the G page not have any pictures but the others do? Could they have been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.26.157 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

fdkbfdmdvmf ,xc bfd gcvx `gx,g vc zf zfc vcm vc `m nbgfmgb cv bg h,g kfg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D18A:88C0:D88D:9279:9474:34D2 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove duplicated article contents

I cut a massive amount of text in which most of the entire contents of this article were duplicated by changes made by User:Munchkinguy on 16:58, 23 Nov 2004. As there were dozens of changes all made quickly thereafter a simple revert wouldn't work. I removed the second copy of the duplicated text. Anybody who made changes during Nov 23-24 of 2004 should double check the article. - Dmeranda 01:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :-( --User:Munchkinguy 22:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Random Move.

User:Jamshaha, for some unexplained reason, moved "G" to "Mujeh Se". I assume this is vandalism? I moved it back. Dan 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur on the vandalism charge. Special:Contributions/Jamshaha shows no other relevant edits. I'm not sure exactly what was the purpose of the move, and will maintain my charge of "vandalism" pending explanation by Jamshaha... Tomer^talk 10:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

G equals [x] in Spanish?!

That's certainly not true in Mexican Spanish, maybe in Castillian Spanish but not in Mexican. I'm going to make a note of that.Cameron Nedland 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Physics

What about "g" and "G" in physics? psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 00:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC) da gang I added a link to G, the gravitational constant. In every class, its referred to as G, I agree that a "little g" for the acceleration due to gravity, should also be added. (unsigned)

We have a user who is moving all "other uses" to the disambiguation pages for all the letter articles. He is going at about one letter a day, working backwards from z. Today he did x. At that rate I calculate he will move your link to G (disambiguation) on approximately April 15. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Slang: G equals God?

I was under the impression that in the Five Percenter movement G was used to refer to another Five Percenter (as it denoted a God), from whence it entered into English slang. Is this true, and if so, is the letter still used as such today? DTMck 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Letter images

The illustration of the Late Latin G appears to be set in Times New Roman. Would anyone be able to re-set it in a more historically-appropriate font? I'd be glad to do it myself, if someone can recommend a freely-available font. Same goes for the other images. —Michael Z. 2006-05-07 21:24 Z

Mark G and other people's nicknames

I think references to people nicknamed "G" should not appear on this page unless they meet the Wikipedia guideline of notability, Wikipedia:Notability, and in fact the person is commonly known as just the letter "G". I also think that before being listed here there should be a full (or stub) article on that person. Andrew G I think is okay, because there is a full article, he is notable, and he is commonly refered to just by the letter G. I'm not so sure about Mark G (though I'm not exposed to Australian media). There's no article, no full name, and even a Google search seems to pull up no useful references. So the listing in this article provides no useful information nor is it verifyable. Unless a better reference is provided, Mark G should probably be removed. — Dmeranda 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

hola mi amor

Meanings for G

G is a 1974 British film - Production name was G, suggest change in wording to production name of The Internecine Project, and known as G in West Germany.

Also, the inclusion of:

1. G (1983)
2. G. (2000)

Other film productions..

Best Regards, Hp Fan 9374

Other meanings for G have been moved to the G (disambiguation) page

For the record, this entire section has now been moved to G (disambiguation), please continue further discussion there. Dmeranda 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For historic reference, the version of this page just prior to the move of this entire section was version 113206977 as of 2007-03-06. From now on, please keep all edits and discussion about any uses, acronyms, or alternate meanings of "G" on the G (disambiguation) page, unless it is specifically concerning "G" as a letter of the alphabet. - Dmeranda (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I cant see the opentail G .. is it just me?

When I go to the URL itself, it looks fine. (I have to do this manually as there is nothing to see.) But in the article itself only the closed-tail image appears. Is it just me? Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What about G from club penguin ? Shouldn't he be under something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.25.241 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. MadZarkoff (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Double-story / Looptail lowercase g in Google logo

The lowercase g in the Google logo (which uses the Catull font) is a special case of the double-story variant, with the tail connecting at the right side of the top loop instead of the left. This distinctive lowercase G is currently the basis of their favicon. -- Adam KatzΔtalk 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

g-force

An additional hatnote

See also: g-force

has been added to the page. I removed it stating that the link is already on G (disambiguation). It was reverted saying that "it is notable enough to not be hidden away on line 50 of a dab". I am not sure what makes it so notable that it needs its own hatnote. I think that "g" standing for gram is at least as notable as "g-force" and it does not deserve its own hatnote on this page. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that 'gram' is more synonymous with 'g' than gravity, but if it is, I think

See also: g-force and gram

is still more acceptable than pretending these are not prominent meanings of 'g' that do not warrant relegation to the birds nest that is g (disambiguation). MickMacNee (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a note on the talk page for the project on hatnotes to generate more discussion. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly notable about either of these two meanings, at least not to the extent of needing an extra hatnote in addition to the disambiguation one. Wouldn't people looking for these items normally type in "g force", "gram" or whatever, rather than just "g"? --Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The other 25 letters seem to get by without hatnotes pointing to specific uses other than the letter - I don't think either usage of "G" here is worthy of its own hatnote. But perhaps these two top usages should take pride of place at the top of the "G (disambiguation)" page, as happens at Reading, New York (disambiguation) etc. PamD (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• G gets roughly 1700-2000 hits a day [1]. Both articles related to gravity that are synonymous in people's minds with 'g', specific gravity and g-force, get 1300 + 500 = 1700 views a day [2][3]. Gram gets 1700 [4]. G (musical note) which I thought might be the next best target gets <50! [5]. Doesn't that stirke anyone as odd if there are supposedly 48 different meanings of g? I cannot think of any other letter that is likely to have such compelling statistics to support direct hatnotes, except maybe Q for Star Trek fans. I do not see how the quest for tidiness is more important than quick and easy navigation to target material. If anything, this page should be the disambiguation page with the top 5 uses listed first. Looking directly at G (letter), roughly 1! person a day [6] does not reach this page without going on to make two further clicks reading through 48 list entries to get where they want to be. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it per my explanation here: Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnote in addition to Disambiguation hatnote. There are many uses for "G", no need to single any out. I'm not opposed to linking the most common uses on disambiguation pages at the top of them if there are clearly one or two that are the most popular. However, in this case I don't think g-force or gram or anything else is clearly a more popular usage of "G". I think G (disambiguation) is probably fine the way it is. It's really not that hard to find g-force on that page, and it's likely someone will simply type g-force, g force, or even gforce if they want that, so I don't see the necessity to make the "G" usage of it prominent anywhere. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

G (disambiguation) is the quick and easy navigation page. The letter G is still obviously the most common usage, clicking to a disambiguation page for things like g-force and gram which are only abbreviated as G (whereas the letter G is simply G) is not hard to do. It's not our job to "decide" what are the most popular usages using things like Google searches. As your above comment says, there are many uses for "G", and I don't see how the disambiguation page right now is not easy to navigate. It's nicely sorted and ordered by section type. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The page view statistics above don't support any of this, gravity and gram are lightyears ahead, the letter g page is simply a mind numbingly annoying barrier in the real world, where people obviously do equate 'g' with gravity and gram, but this barrier is acceptable to most given sensible use of direct hatnotes. It doesn't matter how easy or simple the current solution appears to be when there is a patently even easier and zero cost alternative. When the objections amount to not wanting to take up one extra line at the top of the page, you have to just scratch your head really (and we do have templates that could do this all on one line even, I'm sure). MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, people searching for gram or g-force are going to search for those terms the vast majority of the time and get to their article directly. "G" for gram and g-force, and many other things, is just an abbreviation, and therefore not appropriate in a hatnote. If someone is simply going to search for "G" instead of the full name of something then they can browse through a well-organized disambiguation page. We don't need to cater to abbreviations in hatnotes, it's just not that helpful. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have some way to back up your opinons, I'd be interested to hear it. In the absence of any evidence, my assertion that people do search using g even though it is technically an abbreviation, and people do find a 48 entry list a pain in the ass no matter how neat and tidy it looks, seems just as valid as your assertions here that they don't. But such futility of comparing personal opinion is why I compiled the above statistics to show what actually happens on these pages, and they directly contradict your opinons of what should or does happen. Don't you find it even remotely odd that there are 2000 views a day to 'g', and the views for the common abbreviations of 'g' closely match that figure, with the comparatively small remainder going to the likes of g (note). By my maths, I'd say less than half the people looking at gram/g-force actually type the title in directly, the rest surely come through g, and make up the majority of visitors to g. Coupled with the tiny viewing figures for g (letter), the idea that all this is just a coincidence becomes highly dubious. MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to continue on the look at hits per day, I looked at G (disambiguation). If people were coming to this page looking for gram, g-force, specific gravity or any of the other items on the disambiguation page, you would think that the disambiguation page would have a lot of hits. G (disambiguation) gets only about 140 hits per day[7]. So it looks like less than 10% of the people who come to this page actually come here by mistake and move on to the disambiguation page to find what they are actually looking for. Even if all those people are looking for one of the top 2 pages that have g for an abbreviation that is less than 10% of the people who go to that page make the mistake of looking for it under g. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(indent)Not everybody misdirected here is going to click the dab page (and they didn't need to until March 6 when all other meangings were removed), especially now we have autocomplete on the search box and internal search results, to help with specific searching on phrases. I find it totally unbelievable that 90% of the 2000 people a day want to read content solely about the letter G, and that its similarity to the total number looking at gravity and gram a day is a coincidence. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You ask for something to back up an opinion and I give you numbers that shows people are not using the disambig page. They seem to be finding the information all on their own without the disambig page. You disregard it based on your belief that people aren't looking up the letter G at the same rate they are looking up gravity and gram, but provide nothing to back up this belief. I can see where this conversation is going, nowhere. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to believe that 2,000 people a day are looking for info about the letter G, then fine, we can leave it as the 'neat' but useless version, for the sake of not wasting one line of space (which is irrelevant anyway). I am not going to waste my time any further on this bullshit. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the disambiguation page... Thanks. That's helped me (I was looking for Gravitational_constant) in a related-search for whether there is a term for... The concentration of (net) force per unit-area. However, I did not know what the meaning of "disambiguation" was, so I had to read here first. Albeit I should have Googled "9.8 wiki" instead of "g". Well - nevermind regarding google; it looks like I shall rely on that disambiguation link. EDIT: "Wow. I was searching for the word, 'Pressure', which I usually don't associate with pencils or missiles (yes I'm developing a sci-fi combat-sim)."Diego Bank (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A proposed rule covering the hard <g> in get.

The article points out that there are "many English words of non-Romance origin where ‹g› is hard regardless of position (e.g. get)." In general, though, <g> in <ge> seems to be hard when followed by a plosive in the same syllable, except when <d> is added as an inflectional ending. energetic is an exception, but there don't seem to be many.Peter M. Brown (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

akshay kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.25.106 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understnd? MadZarkoff (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

in German: "sparse"?

German, however, is notable for its sparse use of ‹g› to represent a pronunciation (to represent the sounds /ʒ/, or /dʒ/) regardless of its position within German words.)

What is this trying to say? —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Still wondering. I'll remove it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

gold star cnr-2085--Tonytayag (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)ğÓļđ šťåř

Vandalism?

I don't think "Vfjrsbkidshvsekgsl" should be there.

I can't see why the History of G is gone. I actually came to the site today to look for the bit about Apius Claudius.

Also on the talk page: "yo wikipedia is so sick, its like the have an article about a latin letter and its both coherent and factual, thats just cccccrazy (good job wikipedia and editors and whatnot you guys are awesome)" but it's only on the talk page

122.150.64.245 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

"G (named gee /ˈdʒiː/)[1] is the seventh letter in the ISO basic Latin alphabet." Speling12345 (talk) 3:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So? What (exactly) is it that caught your attention about that? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

J B KNOWLEDGE HEADWAY ALPHABET 

41.218.232.109 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeat of entire article deleted

Not done: please do not repeat the entire article - this is not a "spot the difference" competition.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Invention

Latin spelling and pronunciation#Notes on spelling has a slightly differing account from this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

The last paragraph under the heading 'Typographic variants' contains two instances of the citation needed tag. Here is the relevant section:

"Generally, the two forms are complementary, but occasionally the difference has been exploited to provide contrast. The 1949 Principles of the International Phonetic Association recommends using Opentail g.svg for advanced voiced velar plosives (denoted by Latin small letter script G) and Looptail g.svg for regular ones where the two are contrasted, but this suggestion was never accepted by phoneticians in general,[citation needed] and today 'Opentail g.svg' is the symbol used in the International Phonetic Alphabet, with 'Looptail g.svg' acknowledged as an acceptable variant and more often used in printed materials.[citation needed]"

Both instances of the citation needed tag can be satisfied with the following source: Pullum, Geoffrey K. and William A. Ladusaw. 1986. Phonetic Symbol Guide. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, p. 58.

152.23.58.205 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017 (digraphs)

[Suggested edits to the digraphs section, adding pronunciations/examples for completeness; removing word-final, word-initial, and loanwords-only limitations where appropriate; clarifying which examples aren't really digraphs; and reducing emphasis on vowel-length indication by gh and gn, which really only happens with i (and u in oppugn). Thanks, edited version below.]

The digraph ⟨dg⟩ represents

• a voiced palato-alveolar affricate (/dʒ/) as in bridge, badger

The combination ⟨dg⟩ can also occur as a non-digraph consonant cluster (/dɡ/) in compounds like headgear, floodgate

The digraph ⟨ng⟩ may represent

• a velar nasal (/ŋ/) as in length, sing
• the latter followed by hard ⟨g⟩ (/ŋɡ/) as in jungle, finger

The combination ⟨ng⟩ can also occur as a non-digraph consonant cluster with possible values

• /nɡ/ as in engulf, ungainly
• /ndʒ/ as in sponge, angel
• /nʒ/ as in melange

The digraph ⟨gh⟩ (which mostly came about when the letter Yogh, which took various values including /ɡ/, /ɣ/, /x/ and /j/, was removed from the alphabet) now represents a variety of values, including

• /ɡ/ as in ghost, aghast, burgher, spaghetti, ugh
• /f/ as in cough, enough, laugh, roughage
• Ø (no sound) as in plough, neighbor; indicating "long" pronunciation when it follows ⟨i⟩, as in night
• /p/ in hiccough

The combination ⟨gh⟩ can also occur as a non-digraph consonant cluster (/ɡh/) in compounds like pigheaded, foghorn

The digraph ⟨gn⟩ may represent

• /n/ word-initially, as in gnome, gnostic, gnu
• /n/ after a vowel, as in foreign; indicating "long" pronunciation when it follows ⟨i⟩ or ⟨u⟩, as in signage, oppugn
• /nj/ in loanwords like champignon, lasagna

The combination ⟨gn⟩ can also occur as a non-digraph consonant cluster (/ɡn/) between two vowels, as in signature, agnostic, repugnant

The trigraph ⟨ngh⟩ represents

• /ŋ/ as in gingham, dinghy

The combination ⟨ngh⟩ can also occur as the digraph ⟨ng⟩ followed by ⟨h⟩, with value /ŋh/, in compounds like kinghood, dunghill, stronghold

— Chuisdegueulasse (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chuisdegueulasse: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, are you adding to the "English" subsection under the "Use in writing systems" section or replacing the section more or less? Please be specific in your request--thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Sorry, this is meant to replace the end of the the "English" subsection under the "Use in writing systems" section, starting at what currently reads "The digraph ⟨dg⟩ represents..."

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not sure what's appropriate in terms of sourcing, since the current text doesn't provide references. This correction only

1. adds a few missing values (e.g. /dg/ for ⟨dg⟩ , /ng/ for ⟨ng⟩), citing examples (floodgate, engulf)
2. removes word-initial/word-final limitations for ⟨gh⟩ as /g/ and ⟨gn⟩ as /n/, citing examples (burgher, signage)
3. distinguishes digraphs (e.g. ⟨ng⟩ as /ŋ/) from non-digraph clusters (e.g. ⟨ng⟩ as /ndʒ/)

1 and 2 are verified by the example words, 3 by the definition of digraph. Other changes, I think, are just stylistic. Do you think more support is needed?

@JustBerry: Looking at this again, I do see one unsourced claim: that gh and gn have a lengthening effect on the preceding vowel. This claim doesn't come from me, I just narrowed it to the vowel "i" (and the "u" in oppugn). I would suggest removing this detail entirely, as being tangental and cluttering. In the context of crazy variations like sleigh/sleight/Raleigh, though/through/plough, deign/foreign, etc, it seems odd to give special emphasis to the consistency of "i" in particular. Below is a cleaner version that omits the "i" thing, and is more concise about the digraph/non-digraph distinction. Thanks again.

The digraph ⟨dg⟩ represents

• a voiced palato-alveolar affricate (/dʒ/) as in bridge, badger

Non-digraph ⟨dg⟩ also occurs, in compounds like headgear, floodgate

The digraph ⟨ng⟩ may represent

• a velar nasal (/ŋ/) as in length, singer
• the latter followed by hard ⟨g⟩ (/ŋɡ/) as in jungle, finger, longest

Non-digraph ⟨ng⟩ also occurs, with possible values

• /nɡ/ as in engulf, ungainly
• /ndʒ/ as in sponge, angel
• /nʒ/ as in melange

The digraph ⟨gh⟩ (in many cases a replacement for the lost letter yogh, which took various values including /ɡ/, /ɣ/, /x/ and /j/) may represent

• /ɡ/ as in ghost, aghast, burgher, spaghetti, ugh
• /f/ as in cough, enough, laugh, roughage
• Ø (no sound) as in plough, neighbor, night
• /p/ in hiccough

Non-digraph ⟨gh⟩ also occurs, in compounds like pigheaded, foghorn

The digraph ⟨gn⟩ may represent

• /n/ as in gnostic, deign, foreigner, signage
• /nj/ in loanwords like champignon, lasagna

Non-digraph ⟨gn⟩ also occurs, as in signature, agnostic

The trigraph ⟨ngh⟩ represents

• /ŋ/ as in gingham, dinghy

Non-trigraph ⟨ngh⟩ also occurs, in compounds like kinghood, dunghill, stronghold

Already done — Train2104 (t • c) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

G in mobile phones

Letter G stands for GPRS (General Packet Radio Service). It indicates the slowest speed of Internet data transfer in your mobile phone. When you see G near your signal strength indicator, it is certain that your net connection is working at the slowest speed. GIGoe (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Article for George Hempl

I created a draft at Draft:George Hempl that I would like to know if anyone can add anything. This information is related to this article because one the draft is wikified and moved into the article namespace, this article's mention of Hempl can produce a link there. Any thoughts anyone has?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

About George Hempl's theory

The book that the short paragraph on Hempl's theory shows a reference to talks about it in detail. It starts out by reviewing the traditional theory on how G originated. When I read the appropriate pages, they go into a lot of detail on forms of zeta. (See the Jstor link itself for details.) Not included in the book the Jstor link talks about, however, is the following note:

Unlike the Greeks and Hebrews, the Romans didn't use letters as numbers (A=1, B=2, C=3, and so on.) As a result, it clearly makes sense that if G had come simply by attaching a line to C, it could have been placed either right after C (just as J was placed right after I) or at the end to represent that it's a new letter (just as Y and Z were.) (Two special notes about this paragraph are that we know that the Romans used I, II, III, IV, and so on; and that the word "could" is not "would".)

This section of the talk page is closely related to the infobox that Учхљёная added; I would like to know if we can use Hempl's theory as an "or possibly" group of images to be added to the infobox. Any opinions?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Have we got sources showing that Hempl's view are still being taken into serious consideration by present-day scholarship? I couldn't find any echo of his work in anything newer than the early 20th century. His article seems to have received some mixed echos among the few specialists at the time he published it, but has it had any lasting impact? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any analogy?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; an analogy with what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

An example of an analogy to what this section is discussing. Let's take this:

In the year 1800, someone named John Smith was thought to have been born in Nashville. In 1899, however, research started to suggest that he was born in Memphis. But very few people paid attention to the research, and as late as now, the majority of people still think he was born in Nashville. Georgia guy (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh, so what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I want you to know if this is a good analogy. If not, please think of a better analogy. Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you need an analogy for? We are discussing a simple issue of "due weight"; in determining whether a certain scholarly position should be given prominent treatment, we consider what impact it has had and how strongly it is represented in current scholarship. A view promoted by a single author a hundred years ago and since then disregarded by pretty much everybody else doesn't pass that test. Simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you verify that it has been disregarded and not simply ignored?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the same thing. No echo in scholarship = no verifiable coverage. I can't help feeling that you are trying to get this position included simply because you personally happen to find it convincing. I shouldn't have to tell you that that is completely irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, can you please get rid of that habit of ending every question with a double question mark? It is extremely annoying, it comes across like shouting and makes you sound stupid. Don't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

can i please edit this page there is an incorrect spelling Jacksonic2102 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EclipseDude (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

Welcome To New York - Fanmade Music Video + LYRICS:#SINULOG'. by:Emlin Erojo Nabua 222.127.243.26 (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Doesn't appear to make much sense and it's not clear where this would go on G. Fish+Karate 13:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Relationship between letter G and numeral 6

124.171.87.190 (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Please don’t bite me, I’m a newbie!

I’m a university student in a Wikipedia Education class, and I’m currently learning how to contribute to Wikipedia.
I am approaching my subject in good faith.

If you have any concerns or questions, my tutor’s name is sun_jess (talk · contribs). Thanks!