Jump to content

User talk:White whirlwind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jose77 (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 27 September 2015 (removed my message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For all your good work

The Barnstar of National Merit
For your excellent work in the translation and improvement of China-related articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Well done! Philg88 contact 02:50, 28 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

TUSC token e5543d7d6c132f23e1bad9e4b700906b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Ju versus Fan Sui

I see that you undid my changes of Fan Sui to Fan Ju. I know Fan Sui is also common, but nowadays most Chinese scholars agree it's Fan Ju 范雎 not Fan Sui 范睢, per Zhan Guo Ce and Han Feizi. Ju was a common given name of Qin and Han, Sui was not. In English translation, at least Crump and Watson now use Fan Ju. See also zh:范雎, which uses Fan Ju. -Zanhe (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. First of all, other Wikipedia projects are not inherently WP:Reliable sources, see that link for for info. Secondly, I am well aware that there is debate regarding this issue. On a related note, whether or not "Sui" was a common name or not is, on its own, poor evidence: "Humbert" is not a common English name, but it does exist, and one would be silly to change it to "Hubert" simply because "Humbert" is rare. I see no clear consensus in the published, reliable sources on "Ju" over "Sui" (as I said I feel it's the other way around). Until there is, please leave it as "Fan Sui", though perhaps a note on the controversy would be appropriate.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got it backwards. Shiji used Fan Sui, and that became common because of its influence. However, the earlier texts Zhan Guo Ce and Han Feizi both used Fan Ju. Han Feizi actually wrote Ju as 且, which is unlikely to be mistaken with anything pronounced Sui. As for the common name argument, it's not something I came up with myself, but one of the reasons historians cite to support Fan Ju over Fan Sui. And if you search "Fan Ju of Qin" and "Fan Sui of Qin" on Google books, Fan Ju gets about twice as many returns (even more if you leave out the Qin part, but many would be false hits). -Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just following the reliable sources here, my friend. In any case, Google Books is mostly used as a source when a common name for something or someone needs to be determined, not with a philological issue like this one. On a related note, it's been my experience that Nienhauser, et al.'s Shiji translation is better regarded than Watson's, as Watson's translation, while nice and readable, is barely annotated at all. Let's leave it as "Fan Sui" with a note about the alternative possibility "Ju" until a clear consensus is reached in the scholarship – sound good?  White Whirlwind  咨  01:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese template

Hi! I found this edit so I would like to explain some things.

  • 1. Every subject should have both traditional and simplified listed no matter what. The only difference is which order (modern PRC and Singapore/Malaysia subjects have simplified first and everyone else has traditional first). When the other form is not included the template lists it as "Chinese" not indicating that there are different forms of writing it.
  • 2. Because he lived during the time that Wade-Giles was used in the Mainland, Wade-Giles is relevant to him. The time when not to include Wade-Giles in the lead (AFAIK one still can in the infobox) is if we are talking about a modern subject, particularly one from the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, and Malaysia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, neither of these are actual policies. See WP:Naming conventions (Chinese) and WP:Manual of Style/China-related articles. Your edits, while not inherently bad, are cluttering up the lead sentences and dramatically reducing readability. If you wish to add Wade-Giles readings, please keep them confined to the infobox unless the article subject is widely known by its WG name.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is actually a guideline and there is a difference between policies and guidelines: a guideline is usually held up unless someone can make a case for an exception, and there is "common sense applies". The second is a manual of style, and notice the Zeng Guofan example which lists both Pinyin and Wade-Giles in the intro sentence in its example: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Introductory_sentences. So while the manual of style doesn't say it's a policy to include W-G, I notice it as a de facto best practice. It makes sense for people living in historical periods and the Qing and Republican Era as well as the early Communist era because scholarship used Wade-Giles and therefore one has to search by the Wade-Giles name to get much (older) academic scholarship, even if the subject today is better known with Pinyin. But for modern day PRC figures (Xi Jinping) and many other modern figures I agree using Wade-Giles would clutter since sources today don't use Wade-Giles with those names. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading, friend: "However, where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article, prefer using a {{Chinese}} box instead of {{zh}}. This removes the characters, romanization and pronunciations from the opening sentence, thus making it more readable, while retaining the information off to the side so that the reader can still see it— see the top of this section for an example that uses the {{Infobox Chinese}} template (see {{Infobox Chinese/doc}} on how to use it)." That Zeng Guofan example is there primarily for illustrative purposes and probably needs to be removed. Again, let me be clear: I have no objections to you adding Wade-Giles or other characters to articles, but please confine them to infoboxes for the sake of lead readability, which is crucial for improving Wikipedia articles' quality.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I used the template here. However I would like to see a proposal to remove the example (on the basis that it's too complex) and/or use a simpler one. In the case of Li Bai he definitely would need a template since so many Chinese forms are involved, but as long as the example stays it looks like it could go either way for someone with only Mandarin forms stated. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BC/BCE

I am frequently told that the first use is the one that should stay when someone reverts back several years the way I did. It appears from my experience that this only applies if the first use was BC/AD. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound sour, but that actually is my experience. The guideline needs clarification but that seems impossible also. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to your experience, but that's not good if that is the case. I certainly try to follow the guidelines. As long as an article is consistent why not just leave it? Surely we Wikipedians have better things to do with our time than to patrol articles looking for years-old reasons to make era switches.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It is a pain and a waste of valuable Wikitime; DougWeller is right, the BC/AD camp seems to be much more active than the opposite one. Maybe there should be a template Use BCE dates along the lines of use British/American English. I don't know if it's politic to just create one (the associated category would potentially end up with millions of articles) or whether it needs to be suggested somewhere. My two RMB's worth. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I would say that I was wrong to revert. But having lost the argument the other way too many times.... 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Talk:Zhuangzi (book)/GA1

Hi White whirlwind, it's been a month since my review of your GA nomination, but you haven't done much to address the issues. I sincerely hope you haven't given up on it, as I think it's a very high quality article, and it'll be a pity if it doesn't pass because of some relatively minor issues. If you need more time please let me know. -Zanhe (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe, thanks for the reminder. I started a new job recently and haven't been devoting much time to WP. I will address your suggestions within the week. Thanks for your cooperation.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Congratulations on your new job! Real life is certainly more important than WP, so take as much time as you need. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I addressed your concerns and opinions. Take a look and see what you think. I raised an issue or two on the Talk Page you may want to take a look at. Thanks for your encouragement.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neighbor/neighbour

Hi again, White whirlwind. Regarding this edit, what do you mean by "as is"? Kanguole 09:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to not mix spelling varieties. The article seems to be in an American spelling format, so the neighbor -> neighbor change just keeps it uniform.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article consistently used Oxford spelling. Do you want to change the other occurrences of "neighbour" too? Kanguole 18:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the Wikipedians on your side of the Atlantic were generally kosher with Oxford spelling, but I suppose if they are and it's a WP-acceptable form of British English then that's good enough for us. Incidentally, as an American I do like when British writers use Oxford spelling, as their reasoning on "-ize" is pretty ironclad, but I think both American and British writers need to go further: I've always liked this user's scheme and wish it was more widely known.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Autoblock

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
White whirlwind (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
208.177.147.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Open proxy: webhosting

Accept reason: I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins – my work's IP provider is auto blocked on all Wikis. If someone could sort this out I'd be grateful.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a global range block. Do you wish to request an IP block extension? You will be checkusered to verify the above. MER-C 11:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{checkuser needed}}. This may take a little while, depending on checkuser availability. MER-C 06:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with IPBE is that it would only be effective on this wiki. In any case, CU returned no results for this range, which isn't surprising considering that the range has been blocked since November. Clearly, you are still able to edit from another location, but if it is necessary to be able to edit from this address, I will talk to the blocking steward. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really only active on this wiki, so that's fine. If you could just give my account an IPBE so that I can use my free time at work to edit I would be most appreciative.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Barnstar

The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks for improving the important article Zhuangzi (book) to GA quality. Keep up the excellent work! Zanhe (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto that. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  11:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zhuangzi (book)

Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping to improve the Zhuangzi article. I hope we can help clean up Zhuang Zhou as well. Shii (tock) 19:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

=

Records of the Grand Historian‎

Hey WW! Sorry, I didn't spot that the Nienhauser series was already included in the "Notable translations" section. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: Ok, but it wasn't you that reverted it, was it? I thought it was this "Til Eulenspiegel" character? His edits seem wildly irrational, I've made a note at Talk:Records of the Grand Historian documenting things and asking for level-headed reason to prevail.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't revert—I moved the duplicate sources to a "Further reading" section by mistake. Looks like you have the situation under control now. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 16:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

135 BC

Shaugnessy has stated multiple times, including in his Ph.D. thesis, that the Yijing was canonized in 135 BC, and Tze-ki Hon repeats this as if it is a well-known fact, but I can't find any detailed information about it. Are you aware of any books or articles? (If it is a journal article I might have to ask you to email it to me as well.) Shii (tock) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shii: I can't think of one off the top of my head, but let me look around and get back to you.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the details in Smith 2008 (a rather difficult book to locate!). By the way, you should look at the article talk page, I don't really understand what is going on right now. Shii (tock) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Shii: Good for you! I haven't read that one. Shaughnessy's date of 135 may be off by a year (Nienhauser 1986: 310 gives 136 B.C.), as far as I can tell he's just referring to when Emperor Wu installed the erudites/professors for each classic, I'm not sure that the order mattered a great deal. See what Smith has to say about it.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I again plead with you to look at the talk page of the article... Shii (tock) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Wikipedia policy and Idema and Haft

Hi White_whirlwind: Through the general past content of your edits you seem to be as a stable, competent, and constructive editor on Wikipedia: therefore, I am quite astounded at your actions in systematically removing cited material and related reference citations from Wikipedia articles. For example, Angela Murck in the case of Fu (poetry), and touting Idema and Haft?. Is there any justification for breaking Wikipedia policy by deleting cited material and the accompanying references? If so please let me know; however, it is against the basic spirit and rules of Wikipedia. It seems to me that you are undermining the continuation of the Good Article status which you have seemed previously to have wished for the article. Best wishes, Dcattell (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcattell: Thanks for the message. I'm not sure why you're "quite astounded" at my recent edits. Let's examine the example you gave: I removed the citation of Murck's book, which is entitled Poetry and Painting in Song China: The Subtle Art of Dissent, and was used to cite a detail about Jia Yi's exile. Now, why an editor who professes to have any knowledge of sinology would be using a work on Song dynasty poetry and art to cite a source on the fu article is beyond me. Imagine if I used Gong Kechang's Studies on the Han Fu to cite some fact about Song dynasty poetry, and then got angry when an editor removed or altered it – I would be insane to do so. A citation on Song dynasty poetry ought to come from an academically respected source on that topic, not Gong's book, even if the fact was mentioned in Gong's work for some reason. To answer your second example, Idema and Haft's book is widely used by professors of sinology in the leading centers of Chinese scholarship as a broad overview of Chinese literature (I was specifically recommended it as an initial preparation for the literature portion of my master's degree exams, in fact), so I'm not sure why any reasonable editor would have an issue with it being consulted in relevant articles. Sources are not universally reliable, they're reliable in their own domain. A book on German Romanticism might be a reliable source for an article on that subject, but it would not be appropriate for an article on ancient Germania, even if that was mentioned in the source once or twice. This article has achieved Good Article status, and I, as an expert on this topic with a graduate degree in this field from possibly the leading institution in this field in North America, will do everything I can to ensure the citations in this article are of the same high quality I learned in my training. I hope this has cleared things up for you.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bill Wiltrout for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Wiltrout until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alex (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm qualified to give a nuanced opinion on that discussion, so I'll abstain.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fielding Smith

If you think we should keep it the "way it was" before the dispute, the repetition of the full name should be removed. You added it here] just over 24 hours ago, and it was like that for at least a year prior. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Olfactory: - I meant "the way it was [before you got the reverting party started]" (I would've thought that was obvious), but I'll acquiesce to that.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't understand that. Typically, if we go back to a holding pattern for a period, things go back to the "status quo ante"—the way it was before the changes were made that led to the dispute. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: - No worries. Thanks for enlightening me on that.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking into it further in the history of the article, and it turns out the full name did appear in that paragraph for quite some time prior to 2013. I removed the full name in 2013, and it remained removed until your edit. But for the majority of the life of the article, it was there. So it may not be totally fair for my choice to be the default, if there is no resolution. If no one else comments about the issue in the next few days, I'm fine if you want to add it in again and we can see what, if anything, happens. (Maybe adding it in again would prompt someone to comment.) I recognize that it's kind of a dumb issue to fight over, and I think I probably made too big of a deal out of it in this case.
Anyway, I made an inquiry here asking if anyone knows about any previous consensus or discussions about the issue. I kind of doubt there's anything concrete on it, apart from what is written, which is probably open to multiple interpretations. (As you mentioned, the "generally" could be interpreted to include more exceptions than those listed, though I don't interpret it that way.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: - That inquiry is really the best way to solve it – one would think that this issue would have come up already. As you clearly showed, the current policy only talks about the use of the full name in the lead, but as I showed, it's nearly a universal practice in FAs and GAs to repeat the full name at the beginning of the body of the article, usually in connection with the person's birth. I'd certainly like to see some clear direction, regardless of which method it is.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry, a careless reversion of mine undid your edit at Liu An. Fixing now. Cheers, Basie (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Economic inequality edit.

@White whirlwind:  Done - Thank you for suggesting a supporting reference re the Economic inequality article - hope the noted reference[1] helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Staff (December 9, 2014). "Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research". Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved February 8, 2015.

File:David Nivison.jpg

Regarding your image David Nivision.jpg, three comments here: (1) if you are in contact with content creators and are seeking their permission to use their work on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information about the kind of permission we request and WP:CONSENT for a sample statement of permission that we ask the copyright holder to submit. (2) We do not accept images with "Wikipedia-only" permission or which are licensed for "non-commercial use" or anything like that unless we are fully confident that we could have used the image under a claim of fair use, even if we lacked that permission. If you are saying that we cannot use this image without the copyrightholder's permission, then we should not have been using it under our fair use rules to begin with. (3) Since you are the uploader and have requested deletion, request granted. --B (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xunzi RM

I relisted your move request at Talk:Xunzi. If there is no further comment, I will withdraw my opposition to your request. Thank you for all of your work on these topics. —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: Ok, thanks for letting me know.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsien Tsuen-hsuin

Hi White whirlwind, thanks for your work on Tsien Tsuen-hsuin. I've added you as a contributor to the DYK nomination. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tsien Tsuen-hsuin

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Chinese

Template:Infobox Chinese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at a loss to understand why we need IPA at all, since most English readers don't understand it and pinyin provides enough of an indication of what something sounds like. Sure, there are some exceptions, Xi'an for example, but these are few and far between. Maybe we need to have a centralised discussion resulting in the addition of a some words to the Chinese style guide covering IPA inclusion. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: It's certainly not widely understood at present, but I think it's still helpful; editors have recently added it to most France-related articles and it is a huge boon to me personally. I agree that we ought to have a centralized discussion on the Chinese MoS page about it.
While we're on the subject, we also probably need to have one regarding the inclusion of characters in leads when the Chinese infobox is also used, as an ancient edit (2007, not long after the China MoS was created) to the China MoS states that characters shouldn't be included in that situation, and there is a user who has very strong feelings about that and is implementing it with great vigor. I think it's an incorrect policy, as the reliable sources all do it and Chinese infoboxes tend to get buried under other ones.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that infobox usage came about to avoid cluttering the lead with every Romanisation known to man. In some cases there were two lines of crap before the content started by which time most readers had probably expired from boredom. I'm all for including simple, traditional and pinyin in the lead and nothing else, although there would be not unreasonable objections over Taiwan and Hong Kong related articles requiring alternative Romanizations. I'm not sure whether this is a matter for discussion at Wikiproject China or as an RfC. Thoughts?  Philg88 ♦talk 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi White Whirlwind -- I'd like to second Philg88's concern to say that I don't see any need for IPA since pinyin is pretty much OK by now with most readers and that I myself find IPA unintelligible. Looking through the Chinese style guide I don't see that IPA is mentioned, much less required, and I certainly don't think it would be a good use of your valuable time to add it systematically to all China articles. I would even suggest that the IPA be removed from the lead of Tsien Tsuen-hsuin. But renewed thanks and admiration for all your good work! ch (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Philg88: Yes, in fact I'd shorten it further — one form of characters (probably not both) and some pinyin/YaleCanto/Tai-Lo/POJ (as appropriate) if the English term is significantly different therefrom, that seems very reasonable to me.
@CWH: Ok, I'll cease changing the IPA's and just delete them for now until we have a proper discussion. Thanks for sharing your bona fide concern.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle. Since the Chinese style guide makes no mention of IPA, we have consensus in absentia that it should not be included. Until someone provides a valid rationale to change the status quo with the appropriate supporting consensus then IPA should be removed. The Infobox issue remains a separate bete noir.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: That sounds a lot like argumentum ex silencio to me, I wouldn't take its absence to mean anything.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, but don't forget Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your understanding, WhiteWhirlwind, and thanks once again to Philg88 for helping to keep our eye both on the horizon and on the pesky details in front of us. I think we are still feeling our way in regard to the China articles. This discussion is very helpful in seeing what the problems are in balancing professional precision against accessibility to general readers. There was an article (not a MOS or other policy), which I can't find right now, that advised editors to write to one level below what they thought the primary audience of an article would be. That is, for a grad student type topic, to write at an undergrad level, and for a college level topic to write so that high school people would find it clear. Hard to say exactly what this means in particular cases, but probably a good principle to keep in mind. Cheers! ch (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for efforts - Kimball article

Thanks for your continuing efforts on the Spencer W. Kimball article. I have no concerns about the updates or corrections you made. Thank you. At least on the initial use of Andrew, so you're aware - I understand the typical full name use on first instance, but it had not been shown that way previously. It just said "Andrew" there when first referring to his father, with the full name and link much later in the article. I should have included the full name, but given the amount of time and effort that you in particular have put on the article, I figured the "consensus" to this point had been that it be shown with just the first name there, so I added the lacking link. In a similar way, the lack of nbsp on the pm existed before, that was the real issue, as yes - either pm or p.m. is acceptable. Glad to see the update on their son's name, since it would have seemed natural for what he was known as to have always been listed that way in the article before. Thanks again for your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MJChristensen: Understood, thanks. The rest of your edits, especially the capitalizations, were needed and helpful, I think, so thanks for making them.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yep, I also didn't mean to have so many in one big block like that, I'd noticed a couple of the capitalizations, etc. and started reading through it and it kind of just happened. I know it's a lot harder to follow and see things that way. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cullen

Noticed you nominated this for AFD, but the template you placed at the top of the article leads to a discussion that closed in 2013. Would you consider replacing that template with one that links to the correct discussion? Everymorning talk 23:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everymorning: If I knew how to, I would. Never encountered such a situation before, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: So, just to confirm: if a person writes a book and it gets some reviews in major periodicals, they then automatically satisfy the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article under WP:AUTHOR?  White Whirlwind  咨  22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Wow. Well, thanks for enlightening me.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}

Hi, may I know why you reverted my edit? Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abjiklam: It broke the template, so that Xiaoerjing was appearing all the time even when not called.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops my bad. Could you tell me on which article you noticed that? I'd like to see if I can fix it. And please leave a short edit summary next time :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Abjiklam: I noticed it on a number of articles that called the template, I can't recall which one, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhotic

Non-rhotic accents don't lose the R "after a vowel" (compare words like carry, sorry), they lose it when it's not before a vowel (a subset of the cases where it comes "after a vowel"). That many sources use "postvocalic" for this subset is perhaps unfortunate, but in any case we need to define it correctly - this use of "postvocalic" is not correctly and fully explained by saying "after a vowel". I note we actually have a stub called postvocalic consonant - although unsourced, that seems to define the term correctly for our purposes, and "after a vowel" is only one half of the definition. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@W. P. Uzer: Hi there: I think your confusion comes from the fact that "postvocalic" seems to be used in the scholarly literature in its narrow sense, so "carry" and "sorry" would not fit that definition (they'd be "intervocalic"). I'm open to some elucidation for unfamiliar readers (as WP policy makes clear is our duty as editors), but I'm very cautious about cluttering up the lead and/or altering the wording of directly sourced material, which in my estimation your edits have done. I think this still needs work.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any confusion on my part - I know that "postvocalic" has this narrow sense, and that is what I wrote above. It is because it has this narrow sense, that we mustn't imply to readers that it has a wider sense, which is what we were doing before I made my edits. If the source being cited mistakenly defines it as having the wider sense, then we should simply not use that particular source, but use one of the countless other available sources that does not make that mistake. I also don't agree that my edits "clutter up" the lead - I just added some examples to make it clear in what cases non-rhotic speakers do use the /r/, to go alongside the existing examples showing cases where they do not use it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_whirlwind&oldid=682960111"