User talk:Wolfdog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Before 2021

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hi Wolfdog,

Thanks very much for your contribution to <<Phonological history of English short A>> and I've learned a lot from it. However, I actually have a question, or rather a confusion maybe, in the section of <<æ tensing>>, where I saw you edited quite a some. For several times, the phrase "raised and tensed" appears. My understanding is that "raised" is an indispensable component of "tensed" (the other one is either "lengthened" or "diphthongized"), but the "and" conjunction makes it look like they are in parallel, rather than one including the other. Could you perhaps help me clarify my confusion if you know the answer? Very much appreciated!!

CHNNLBOKA (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/æ/ tensing[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, Thanks very much for your contribution to <<Phonological history of English short A>> and I've learned a lot from it. However, I actually have a question, or rather a confusion maybe, in the section of <<æ tensing>>, where I saw you edited quite a some. For several times, the phrase "raised and tensed" appears. My understanding is that "raised" is an indispensable component of "tensed" (the other one is either "lengthened" or "diphthongized"), but the "and" conjunction makes it look like they are in parallel, rather than one including the other. Could you perhaps help me clarify my confusion if you know the answer? Very much appreciated!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNNLBOKA (talkcontribs) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CHNNLBOKA:Actually, haha, I was wondering exactly about the difference myself. Each of the Wikipedia articles for the two fails to mention the other. I believe I may have borrowed, or even simply left, the phrase "raised and tensed" from prior edits. "Raising" is the more common term as far as I know; "tenseness" seems to me more a matter of perception rather than production, but that might just be my impression. I have no idea definitively. If anyone else ever explains, let me know too! Wolfdog (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wolfdog:Hi man! I would be more than happy to hear from you about the difference between "tensing" and "raising"! Thanks!

Leonardo da Vinci: "patronymic"?[edit]

I saw you made an edit June 3, 2015 to the Leonardo da Vinci page indicating his name is patronymic. I'm finding that poorly sourced.

The text below gives details on Leonardo's name, which in full form as recorded in baptismal records is "Lionardo di ser Piero da Vinci", that is, Leonardo, son of Sir Piero, of Vinci.

It seems that the "da Vinci" is not patronymic but is based on place or location. The fact that Leonoardo's father also was "da Vinci" seems to reflect on place rather than patronymic as well. The "di ser Piero" is patronymic, but that's not how Leonardo is typically referred to.

The question's come up on Reddit.

Note that I don't have any specific expertise here, but the claim doesn't seem well supported, and conflicts with my and others' understanding.

If you've got a source that can confirm specifically that "da Vinci" is patronymic, please add it. Otherwise, the claim should probably be removed.


Dredmorbius (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dredmorbius: Oh, you're absolutely right! I was thinking of a name/title for which there is no word I can find: a kind of sobriquet or title that indicates the person's birthplace but is not, per se, a part of Leonardo's name. Let me know if my revision to the article seems more appropriate. Wolfdog (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have no problem with additional material being added for the inland north jersey and piney areas. I grew up 10 minutes from Philly, and when I drove to the AC airport to pick up my parents and their flight was late, I stopped at a redneck bar for lunch, and was asked what state I was from! Expanding the article makes total sense to me, we just need to do so with sources--I would not oppose your adding that material with sources. In any case, the discussion doesn't belong on my talk page, so let's keep it at the article page where all can see. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Medeis: I was trying your expansion idea (though I obviously think disambiguation is more appropriate), but I'm confused about some of your reverts, like putting back in a redlink, leaving "wooter" right after a bullet which some might assume means it's how it's locally spelled, and singling out the new section as needing additional citations for verification (of which I already provided 3 different pages from a widely respected source) when most of the rest of the page's information has no verification. Why not just use a whole-page verification template at the top? Wolfdog (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern English[edit]

It's not really a matter of what I personally like or don't like. The problem is that you made substantial additions and changes without sufficient citations. I agree the entire article needs better sourcing, but I'm sure you know that is not a rationale for adding to the problems. I won't edit war. For now I'll probably add a global refimprove template. I trust you'll add your citations in a reasonable time frame. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC) @Sundayclose: I'm asking where exactly you want the citations. I've been mostly already adding citations as I've gone along here, so I'm a little confused. There are certainly places that did not have citations, prior to my edits, but I don't see where my edits are substantially missing citations. Can you please tell me where, and I'll add in the citations. Wolfdog (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I misread I apologize, but it seems to me that you added information about Yat and African-American phonology without additional sources. Are your additions there sourced? In any event, I think we agree that the entire article needs additional sources. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sundayclose: Initially yes, but I added in the sources after I read your reversion/edit summary. Do they seem sufficient now? (And I barely touched on the African-American section as it is.) For my own sake, where else do you think the article needs stronger sources? I'm happy to do some digging at some point. Obviously, I've mostly been focused on phonology issues. Wolfdog (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Looking more closely, I may have overreacted initially. I think if you have adequately sourced those two issues that I mentioned above I'm fine with your edits. I do think the global refimprove template should remain. Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that's fine. I was just wondering where I might search next to help improve the article by asking what others sections need help, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunday wiki-event, in case you're in the NYC metropolitan area...[edit]

I'd like to invite you to Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wiknic in Prospect Park Sunday, if you're in the area, and we can compare imaginary regional accents over barbecue and scrabble!--Pharos (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, what a cool concept and thanks for the invite! Unfortunately, I no longer live in that immediate area, but please enjoy some barbecue on my behalf!
I'm not sure how far out you are, or how often you can make it into the city, but we have monthly social events (including an evening WikiWednesday this coming week!) and regular museum editathons, if you like you can catch all our events by watchlisting WP:Meetup/NYC.--Pharos (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AmE Map[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, i'm wondering why an earlier version of your AmE dialect map showed the Southern MD/Northern VA/Southern Delmarva area in the white color, indicated inconsistent/under-researched, which was consistent with the boundaries shown in ANAE, but you later changed this to be fully within the Midland dialect region. ANAE doesn't really categorize this region and TESLUR puts it almost entirely in SAE. It just caught my eye as i'm from that region, and was wondering why you made that change / what data supports it.

Oh, you're right! I must have robotically just filled in the ANAE white area thoughtlessly with the Midland color. I've gone back now to specify the region better. Hope it works (my uploads seem to take a few days to fully process thru Wikimedia!). Wolfdog (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be showing up now, that area looks more consistent with other dialect maps. Thanks, also good job with all the phonological description it seems you've been adding to several dialect pages. I wish that on the Old Virginia page or SAE page there could be some info on modern SAE in the Chesapeake region, but it seems there's a real lack of phonological research in the area. I can tell you for example, from experience and from my own dialect, that the voiced/voiceless split and general fronting of the vowel in <loud/lout> mentioned in the SAE article is still very much alive in the Chesapeake, my own realization is roughly [ laɵd / lɜʉt ] , but I can't seem to find any research that supports or even mentions this in young speakers in the area.

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South African English may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 13 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ae tensing in "general american"[edit]

Hi Wolfdog. Your recent editing to the "General American" makes some of the sections more clear and readable, and I sincerely appreciate your effort on that and also broad knowledge about this topic. Meantime I notice that one of the major changes made by you occurred under the subject "ae tensing", where the table was modified and different from the one in "Phonological history of English short A". I suppose that they are essentially from the same source given that the latter one also is the reference in the first one. However, some of the statements about ae tensing in those two articles are a bit inconsistent in my opinion, such as the transcription of the tensed ae and some contents in the tables. Would you like to discuss it or clarify the difference? I would love to hear opinions from you. Thanks.

Kind regards, CHNNLBOKA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNNLBOKA (talkcontribs) 08:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @CHNNLBOKA:, Yes, I simply forgot to replace that "Phonological history" one with the more recently updated and simplified one ("simplified" is relative here, haha). I've just done it. Are there any other specific discrepancies you were wondering about in particular? Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Wolfdog:, thanks for your response. Now I see the updated revision :). As to any other discrepancies, I do feel that the transcriptions of the tensed ae in the contexts in those two articles can be somehow causing confusion, at least to me. You used the diacritics of lowered and raised in "general american" but not in the other one, which to me looks like that it implies a narrower spectrum of the variation of tensed ae.

@CHNNLBOKA:, oh I see! I was likely being more specific/detailed when I was editing for the GenAm page itself, but more general/simplifying in the chart, which I made to be a grid of convenience. You can feel free to change either one if you feel it confuses less. Here's one of the main sources I used: According to the ANAE, which defines GenAm as having the vowels overlapping between Western, Midland, and Canadian English, "The most common short-a configuration in the West and the Midland is a more or less continuous range of allophones from low front to mid position, with no marked break. [...] The highest and frontest tokens are with nasal codas[....] It is evident that a continuous system of this sort differs from the nasal system only in the degree of differentiation of the vowels before nasal consonants" (p. 180). In other words, /æ/ is still the highest and frontest for typical U.S. speakers before nasals; whether the lowest possibility is [æ] or [æ̝] differs based on sources. If choosing one puts you at ease go for it! If you want some more sources I researched, let me know. Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wolfdog:, Thanks for your response and reference to the source. What really makes it a little baffling to me is that (1) in "GenAm" the diacritics of raised and lowered are used in [ɛ̝ə̯] and [e̞ə̯]. It's never been very clear to me what the difference is between a lowered vowel and a raised vowel that is right under it in the IPA Vowel Chart. It all boils down to the question how much a vowel is lowered or raised with the diacritics, or for instance, will a lowered [e] be lower than a raised [ɛ]? (2) in "Phonological history" it is described that "A common realization is [eə]—that is, a centering diphthong with a starting point closer than the vowel [ɛ] as in dress". Therefore does it mean that the real phonetically accurate transcription actually should be [ɛ̝ə̯] (or [e̞ə̯], which is related to (1) again)? And if we compare all the transcriptions in both texts and charts of both articles, it is also a bit confusing to me what the most commonly used highest front vowel is for ae tensing. Is it [eə̯], [e̞ə̯], or [ɛ̝ə̯]? If there is no such a definition or the choice of them is rather arbitrary as the difference is (almost) inaudible, should we unify them with only one of the aforementioned transcriptions in both article to avoid any inconsistency?

@CHNNLBOKA: My most honest answer to your questions is "I'm not sure." This page's infobox (on the right top of the page) equates your symbols. My best-guess answer for your first two questions is "These different symbols all equate to more or less the same sounds." The diacritics are just a way to provide some nuance to the widely-used reference vowels. Regarding your question of the most commonly used vowel for /æ/ tensing, I personally prefer either [ɛə] or [ɛ̝ə], though I'm not sure if any research specifically backs up this perception:
  • To me, [eə] is overplaying it: getting into the territory of the nasal system (e.g. heard in Boston) or the split system (e.g. heard in NYC); for example, even this University of Edinburgh page only notes one U.S. dialect as venturing into the realm of [eə]. (However, to attack my own source, I actually think the Edinburgh site terribly inaccurately transcribes "Standard American," using [æə] -- with NO diacritic!)
  • Meanwhile, [æ̝ə] seems to me too downplayed (and as I say above, the Ediburgh transcription even more bizarre to me). If we agree that most people sound like something between [ɛə] and [eə] (or even [ɪə] in a real strong instance), than anything with the [æ] symbol is outside that range. When I hear most Americans say "man," it sounds more like "may-un" (even if slightly exaggerated) or "meh-un" than it sounds like the word "map" with the "p" replaced by an "n" (which would just sound British to me).
Anyway, to get to the point you probably care most about: yes, I think we should unify the article better and just pick one transcription. Good point. Wolfdog (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wolfdog:, Great. Thanks a lot for clarifying it.

@Wolfdog:, I just very minorly edited some wording in the first paragraph of ae tensing sector in the article "Phonological history". Please have a look and correct it if you have other opinions about the editing. Thanks a lot.

I seem to have missed a step when nominating the article for deletion. Thanks for filling in what I didn't do. Chamberlian (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Wolfdog (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simon chapter 2006 pdf[edit]

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

  • Simon, Beth (2006). "Chapter 21: Saying Ya to the Yoopers (Michigan's Upper Peninsula)". In Wolfram, Walt; Ward, Ben (eds.). American Voices: How Dialects Differ From Coast to Coast. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-2109-2.

to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_26#Saying Ya to the Yoopers. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Wolfdog, I never heard back from you about this. At first I figured it was because of an American holiday, but it has been a while. You haven't marked your resource request as resolved; do you still need this chapter? I can send it to you as a pdf if you send me an email that I can reply to. Worldbruce (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Toide[edit]

Hello, Wolfdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


I just wanted to thank you for spending so much time keeping the New England English pages up to speed. I have become somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia due to some things which have happened on the management level, so I haven't been around to monitor the pages like I used to.

Also, I hope that you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Tharthan (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tharthan: Thanks so much for your kind words. They're very appreciated. I hope you're doing alright these days.

...And the same to you: Have a great Christmas and New Year! Wolfdog (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your viewpoints dominate to much[edit]

In terms of english dialect of North america your views are dominating to much. I plan on taking this to wikipedida management if it continues. One person should not do the ovwerwheliming majority of content on wikipeida, especially in regards to this subject. JeffMoore087 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @JeffMoore087: I'm not sure what you'd like me to do differently. ...If what continues? Your first sentence seems to accuse me of editorializing; then your second sentence suggests that, in general, I'm just doing too much editing. What is your actual complaint? Wolfdog (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is hardly true, Mr. Moore. Information on North American English dialects is often biased towards one region, leaving other regions out. Thanks to good folks like Wolfdog here, we have more sundry information available on Wikipedia about the various English dialects spoken in North America. Tharthan (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speculative fiction[edit]

I haven't found a source that actually defines speculative fiction. They start up pointing the main genres it encompasses, and that's exemplifying, not defining. From common features observed in these genres, we can get a proper definition and that's what I was trying to do in the article. I have previously called this exemplification a definition, but yes, I was wrong. And it isn't original research since it doesn't try to support a point of view or opinion, it just translates implicit facts. - - Alumnum (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm curious about your interest in dialects. Is it a vocation or an avocation? (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiberno-English → Irish English[edit]

Apologies for accusation of suspicious movement of Hiberno-EnglishIrish English. The article has been requested moved numerous times in the past, and AFAIK, has always been opposed. An admin (well two in fact) agreed it was suspiciously placed, but we all agreed, likely accidental. As this is WP, there sadly exists a minority of users who know how things work, so use sneaky methods to get things done their own way, which considering you are a veteran editor (almost 10 years now :o), I'm sure you are well aware of. However, that is not to say they were your intentions, especially considering you gave a very valid point, were with ill intent. Again, my apologies, and I wish you a very late Happy New Year. Uamaol (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uamaol: Thanks for your explanation. I admit that, despite being a long-time Wikipedian, I still don't have a very sure sense of how to navigate it in the area of policy. Any time I am interested in a move or deletion discussion, I have to go, every single time, back to WP:AFD or WP:RM to remember again what protocol I'm supposed to follow. Sometimes I still mess up. I appreciate your understanding! Wolfdog (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely understand. I am often stumped and how some users, especially admins, can find information so quickly on policy topics and even stuff which seems impossible to find on Google. You may find a tool like Twinkle may be to your advantage with the above, however I've not checked anything apart from Twinkle out, and even Twinkle, I've only used parts of it. Uamaol (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation of onomatopoeia[edit]

Hi Wolfdog

I have partly reverted your edit on Onomatopoeia, which you summarized as Simplifying pronunciation, while including all the options (see my edit [1]). I think it is OK that the /oʊ ~ ə/ alternation be abbreviated as /oʊ/ since the reduction to /ə/ is quite natural and largely predictable. However, abbreviating the /æ ~ ɑː/ alternation as /ɑː/ is misleading. I have therefore reinstated the explicit mentions of both /æ/ and /ɑː/.

I am positive that you made the changes in good faith. You have probably overlooked that the code in {{IPAc-en}} no longer display as /aː/, but as /ɑː/. The reason for the change was that the use of /aː/ for the /æ ~ ɑː/ alternation is not attested anywhere outside of Wikipedia. This had been criticized several times, and in Help talk:IPA for English#The Diaphonemic System we reached consensus to deprecate this use. I have reviewed all instances that previously had /aː/ and changed them, where necessary, to /æ, ɑː/. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 14:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vermont IPA...[edit]

...and I don't mean India Pale Ale by Long Trail Brewery. In the latest version of Vermont you have rendered the IPA as "/vərˈmɒntˌ vɜːr-/ (listen)." Previously, it was "/vərˈmɒnt/ (listen) or /vɜːrˈmɒnt/." I assume that this was intentional. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

descriptive linguistics V linguistic description: Dawn of Requested Move[edit]

Just noticed these.[2][3] User:Curly Turkey and I have been discussing it and neither of us were aware of the initial titles of these pages until I went and "Ctrl+F"ed the page histories after having already opened an RM. Both of us thought the current titles were the result of the page creators who are no longer active, but you appear to be, so dropping you this courtesy notification of the RM. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Domestication. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been or will be undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. 13MAY16 - "consciously influences the reproduction and care of another group" was not in the citation, that is your conjecture. Refer WP:Vandal Vandalism is prohibited. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. William Harristalk • 03:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@William Harris: Your accusations of vandalism are completely out of line, entirely unfounded, and extremely insensitive. I have a long history of consistent good-faith edits on Wikipedia, where I contribute as a regular editor. In fact, lets break down the actual edit I made:

  • Here's how the edit before mine read:
    • "Domestication is the scientific theory of the mutual relationship between plants or animals with the humans who have influence on their care and reproduction."
  • Here is my edit (that you're calling "unconstructive" and apparent "vandalism"):
    • "Domestication is a sustained, multi-generational, mutualistic relationship between groups of organisms, in which one group consciously influences the reproduction and care of another group in order to secure a more predictable supply of resources from that second group."
  • Here is what it says verbatim in the already-cited source:
    • "Domestication is a sustained multigenerational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest."

It's undeniably clear that my edit is much closer in matching the language used in the cited source than the previous edit(s). If you would presume anything, then you should first presume I'd added the wording I did in order to keep Wikipedia more tightly aligned to its citations, which is objectively what I've done. If you believe something is conjectural, of course you should notify and discuss with the other user, etc. On the other hand, to read the riot act to me about vandalism and accuse me of "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" are comments verging on ridiculousness. It's hard to understand how you arrived at that way of thinking, especially since you have a template on your user page claiming that you believe in civility and assuming good faith. Wolfdog (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect. You deliberately chose the word consciously when the rest of the article - largely based on the same author's work - says it was not conscious. You knew exactly what you were doing and used Zeder's citation to support your personal spin across the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia. Do it again, and we take a little trip together over onto the "blood-sports page" (Admin incidents). Have a read of their deliberations; they appear to be reasonable people. William Harristalk • 09:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@William Harris: I already know that I deliberately chose that word. My intention was to paraphrase the quotation, abridging the nebulous phrase "assumes a significant degree of influence" into what I felt was the clearer "consciously influences." You have every right to disagree and think that "consciously" was the wrong word to use, which I am and was always happily willing to discuss, but instead you choose to employ an ugly tone with me, threatening me with "a little trip together." You need to learn to have a more civil tone. My history clearly shows that I'm a constructive editor, not a vandal. I have no need to spin the page one way or the other; if my word choice appears to you to have a spin, then it was simply accidental or unintentional. Make the fix, assume good faith, and move on. Wolfdog (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allowable number of requested moves?[edit]

Hi! Is there an official or rule-of-thumb allowable number of requested move nominations? Let's say that a requested move did not generate much discussion and simply ended with "No consensus". Can the nominator against request that same move? Is there a certain amount of time the nominator should let elapse before doing this? Is there some other action that can/should be taken? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is "don't be disruptive". I would think immediately relisting a No-Consensus request that had little discussion would generally not fall into that category, as the requestor could just be wanting a definite yes/no. Every situation is unique of course, so the specific circumstances would be more of a consideration than this hypothetical. CrowCaw 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) I would say to wait a month before re-requesting. If a request ended up with no-consensus and generated little discussion the first time round it's not likely to generate significantly more 24 hours later. Additionally any comments that were made to the previous request will still be valid to a new one, so will just be duplicating opinion and be pointless. I'm reminded of Cheryl (entertainer) who has had at least 7 officially requested moves, and four within the space of three months. That became so annoying that a 3 month moratorium was placed on move requests as they were deemed disruptive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

lifelong speakers[edit]

Any reason why you never really bother to add female lifelong speakers of certain accents? (i'm looking in the direction of boston and philly) Having a list that is like 90 percent male is boring. Something really needs to be done a bout this. Juliep94 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's showing gender bias. This should not be acceptable in 2016. And looking at those pages, it's more accurate to say it's 98 percent male. Yarkyard (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to jump to conclusions. You can see in the past I've added several women to the Inland North page and I also added Gina McCarthy (the only woman currently listed) to the Boston accent page, so I have no intention of being biased. That said, the lists definitely do show a gender bias (I'm glad you brought up the issue, Juliep94), and I fully support including more females; please feel free to add some yourselves if you have the time! I'm happy to work on it if/when I have the time/stamina for deeper research, but collaboration is most preferred! Let me know. Wolfdog (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks terrible to have 20+ males shown and only list 2 females. It's backwards to go out of the way to find as many male examples as possible and have only a couple females shown. Something needs to be done about that. Yarkyard (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've said, I agree that this is true, especially on hugely disparate pages like Boston accent. The important question now is: What exactly should we do about it? I suggest we work together. Would you like to get started with me on a particular page? Wolfdog (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be close to 50 / 50 ratio as possible. Please do what you can as soon as you can. I'm currently busy for the next couple months. If you get time, please try to get it to a near 50 / 50 ratio. Do the Boston page. It makes the site look bad and sexist with such a horrible disproportionate amount of males are listed. Yarkyard (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I agree wholeheartedly and, again, I require the assistance of yourself or others. To be honest, I don't know many female speakers off the top of my head. Do you? If you can give me some names, I'd be happy to explore articles about them online. My best bet at the moment is to type phrases like "her Boston accent" in Google and hope that celebrities pop up. Wolfdog (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. I just know that it's the same on the Philadelphia page as well. If people are going to list a lot of notable speakers, then they should at least try to get nearly as many female examples. When you do get a lot of free time, please really look into this. I'm very busy until really early next year. Adding more female examples really needs to be addressed. Again, when you get some free time, please look into this. Yarkyard (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide edit summaries[edit]

These allow other interested editors to understand what you are doing, and minimize checking of your edits. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

57.9% of your edits do not have summaries. Not a good statistic. I hope you can help your fellow editors by providing summaries. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isambard Kingdom: Mmmm... so, I'll correct myself: I often forget. Or I neglect when I feel changes are minimal. And early on in my WP career I probably never provided edit summaries. So, theoretically, I'm at least improving! Incidentally, where can one find statistics like these? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Click on "contributions" at the top right of the page. This provides your edit summary. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Edit count". This gives all kinds of information on you editing habits. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Somehow, I never knew that. Wolfdog (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for your contributions to the "Storytelling" wikipedia page. I hope you continue to contribute to more pages like that in the future. I was wondering if you would be interested in editing content for the presidential debate pages and political pages in regards to the upcoming election in 2016? Or if you have any interest in editing for these type of political focused pages in the future? LiamWatson42 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Wolfdog. As you have said Latin is covered in Romance languages so it would be repetition to state its influence. In the lede it's best to keep it as concise as possible without going into details covered in the links. The way it's currently written ("primarily influenced by Germanic and Romance languages, particularly Franch") I see no issue with as French is clearly emphasized. All the best. RichardHarris22 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello, Wolfdog. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northern American English[edit]

Hello, sir/ma'am. I am simple user of Wikipedia. I questioned with something on the page Northern American English, and it seems you have had a lot of input into this particular article. Therefore, it seems that if anyone knows the answer to this question, it would probably be you.

Do you happen to know why New York City English is not considered to be apart of the Northern dialect spectrum? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LakeKayak: Hello. Yes, I certainly have some insight into this question. In the North, the vowels in /[invalid input: 'ar']/ and // start fairly forward in the mouth; in New York City, these same vowels start very far back, which can disqualify NYC from being a type of the Northern American English. This is the main sound-based (accent) difference between the two. New York City English also has a lot of other unique sounds and some vocabulary that is different from (or absent from) Northern American English. Do you want me to expand more on this? Wolfdog (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I do, sir/ma'am. Also, I was under the // was fronted in New York English. Is this inaccurate?

@LakeKayak: I'm a "sir," but you can call me Wolfdog. "Sir" seems too formal. I think you're asking if // is fronted in New York City English. The answer is yes it is. But it is NOT very fronted in Northern American English. Wolfdog (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You only confused me with this line:

In the North, the vowels in /[invalid input: 'ar']/ and // start fairly forward in the mouth; in New York City, these same vowels start very far back.

I think that you may have said the exact opposite of what you meant with /aʊ/. You said that /aʊ/ was backed in New York and fronted in Northern English. So, I was only confused. Thank you for clearing that up though.LakeKayak (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LakeKayak: Oops... you're right. I'm an idiot. I meant to say "In the North, the vowel in /[invalid input: 'ar']/ starts forward in the mouth and // starts back; in New York City, this is reversed, with /[invalid input: 'ar']/ backed and // fronted." My apologies. Wolfdog (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thank you, Wolfdog, for your help.LakeKayak (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northern American English in New Jersey[edit]

Hello, sir. I have another question. According to the page New Jersey English, this is one of the dialects of New Jersey. However, this is just a big umbrella, do you happen to know which specific accent under this umbrella is found in New Jersey?, because I have no idea.LakeKayak (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @LakeKayak: The accent doesn't have a unique name in the research, probably because north(western) New Jersey doesn't have any unique features.... it's just part of the big Northern umbrella. It has no unique features of its own that are confined ONLY to New Jersey. Its defined features on the article include the "nasal short-a system" which is found throughout most of the U.S., and a backed /u/, which predominates in the North. There is nothing else very specific about this accent. Every village and town theoretically can have its own accent, but that doesn't mean that such an accent is unique or well-studied enough to have been given a name in the linguistic research. I hope that helps. Wolfdog (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My question wasn't really answered. I do apologize. It seems that I wasn't clear. The page Northern American English lists three sub-varieties to the super-dialect: Southwestern New England, Inland North, and Upper Midwest American. Do you happen to know which one of these three is the local accent of Northwestern New Jersey?LakeKayak (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @LakeKayak: No, I think I answered it, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough myself. It isn't any of those three. Those three are the main three unique sub-varieties: sub-varieties distinct enough to be a special type of Northern American English. But there are also local varieties of Northern American English that do not have any such special or unique features. The English of North Jersey is one of those local varieties. Wolfdog (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, sir. LakeKayak (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern American non-rhoticity[edit]

Hello, sir. Looking the history of the page Older Southern American English, it seems you might be the expert on this one. Typically, speakers of non-rhotic accents drop the postvocalic r. However, didn't the speakers of older Southern Americans accents also drop the intervocalic r? I appreciate any help. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The esteemed Southern-dialect linguist Erik Thomas, has simply said "Some older Southerners are also variably non-rhotic in intra-word intervocalic contexts, as in carry [kʰæi]" (p. 16). Wolfdog (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, sir.LakeKayak (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fusion music listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fusion music. Since you had some involvement with the Fusion music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trump and NYC English[edit]

Hello, Wolfdog. Mrvs3rsac and I have been having a debate on whether or not Trump is a representative speaker of New York City English. Can you help us out? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North American Region Phonology[edit]

Thanks for the explanation.LakeKayak (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LakeKayak: The discussion is closed. Feel free to edit. Wolfdog (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I see you had issues with some of the content on the aforementioned page. To start, your edits are acceptable and useful edits. Just to let you know, in case some the content pissed you off, the original page Comparison of American and British English had a tag that said that page should be re-written. As a result, there will be problems with this new page, none of which anybody intended. And any help is appreciated. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LakeKayak: I'm not upset about anything! Just making a few edits here and there. Wolfdog (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on the ANAE[edit]

I beg your pardon, Wolfdog. I read something that Labov et al. in the ANAE said that confused me a little bit about /æ/ tensing in New York City, describing the sound /eə/ as being. "overtly stigmatized". I did look up the word "overtly", and I found it defined as "openly or without secret". However, in my own experiences, it at least seems unlikely given that /æ/ tensing occurs in almost all American dialects at least before nasals. I am under the assumption that I simply misunderstood what Labov et al. were saying. Do you think you could explain this? The location of the quote is chapter 13.LakeKayak (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LakeKayak: The quotation reads "Further, it should be noted that raising of /æh/ is overtly stigmatized in New York City, and with any attention given to speech is apt to show correction of raised /æh/ to low front [æ:]." It's under a section called "The Split System," so I think it is specifically talking about the NYC split system. This is what is specifically stigmatized in NYC, not just any kind of /æ/ tensing. Wolfdog (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rojos del Águila de Veracruz team name in English[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rojos del Águila de Veracruz#Team name. I believe that you have been involved in translation edits on the Rojos del Águila de Veracruz article. Previously, this article has lacked a consensus by edit on the English translation of the team name & has gone back & forth. There is now a discussion on the talk page for which I ask you to to concur or object. The current iteration seems reasonable to me. Please do not change the English translation of the name from this version until we have reached a consensus through discussion. Peaceray (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here's one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G-Zay, for now it's just 3 users (including one we didn't discuss) but I'm gathering evidence for the rest of them. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not updating you earlier, but as you can see, one of the admins just closed my request without any action. Apparently, if a sockpuppet hasn't been active for long enough, it's 'not worth investigating' which, to me, sounds unreasonable, since G-Zay is known to use inactive socks. But I'd rather give up on that than argue with that guy.

If you see any suspicious activity on AmE-related pages, let me know. We can and we should report active socks. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: Honestly, I find the user Blastprocessor somewhat suspicious. But I'm trying to assume good faith and take them to be a new (and fairly stubborn) Wikipedia user with not a lot of experience editing, who for the moment seems to have honest intentions. Wolfdog (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I find a bit annoying is that he keeps misspelling Cities as City in Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Does it look like a normal misspelling to you? Because to me, it doesn't. It doesn't make much sense even if you don't know what the NCVS is (why say "Northern City" is you can just say "Chicago" for example? This isn't some military code, you can name that city.) G-Zay is known for making bizarre misspellings such as and instead of an.
There's also this strange guy who hit us with a wave of false accusations and reported me to the admins. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently this is not the first time I find Usernamebradly to be suspicious. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel the same way about this other user as well. No, it doesn't look like a particularly normal misspelling to me. But it could be the kind of error like the very common "Daylight Savings Time" versus the original phrase "Daylight Saving Time" (though actually the reverse of this error). On the other hand, something like a hypothetical "Wounded Soldiers Foundation" sounds just about as good to me as "Wounded Soldier Foundation". Maybe it is just an honest (repeated) mistake. Wolfdog (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can easily check if it's repeated by multiple accounts, including the confirmed sockpuppets of G-Zay. I'll take care of that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Thanks for looking into it. I really appreciate it. Wolfdog (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit busy with the discussion on Help talk:IPA/Slovene. I'll check the edits within the next 1-2 days, or maybe today. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you online? The mistake is repeated by both Blastprocessor ([4], [5], [6], [7]) and Usernamebradly ([8], [9]) but also the banned user Zero077 ([10] - yes, this is a G-Zay sockpuppet). I'll report them, but I'd like you to briefly describe your problems with both of these users. I don't mean to be a burden, but I also don't want to miss important details.
In the meantime, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diabedia if you want to. It's hilarious how quickly the baiter became the baited! Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Wow! Great catches! When you say you'd like me to briefly describe my problems, should I just write that here? Wolfdog (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's the easiest way, yes. I'll have to write a report anyway, I can't just copy-paste it from a subpage of my user page. (I actually could, I misunderstood how the SI template works). Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, Mr KEBAB. Here are the write-ups:
Blastprocessor has only ever edited the General American, Western New England English, American English, and North American English regional phonology pages, appearing out of the blue this past November.‎ In the lead section of Western New England English, Blastprocessor removed detailed information with a specific source to replace in favor of broader information with a vaguer (and vaguely cited) source -- this same second source already mentioned in the body of the article later on anyway multiple times with actual page numbers and specifics given. I reverted Blastprocessor's edit, summarizing "You're repeating yourself and the grammar is inconsistent" and mentioning the overabundance of their source. We then reverted each other's edits for another round. Blastprocessor seemed to be ignoring my comments, citing merely "Please don't delete my source" when they themself were already deleting a source in the original version. Blastprocessor is also involved in an ongoing, unresolved dispute with me on Talk:American English about wanting to include the same vaguely cited source from the previous conflict on American English (where, incidentally, user Ajd also caught Blastprocessor flagrantly misquoting this source). This led us to talking in circles, with Blastprocessor bringing up the same argument each time, while I discredited and later tried to just move past this argument and come to something of a compromise (in fact, even creating a compromise from the very beginning of this dispute which went ignored). Blastprocessor, meanwhile, made no attempt to debunk or counter my arguments, instead simply repeating their own stance with "I see no reason why..." kind of talk. I also tried to educate this user on how to cite sources better on their user talk page, where, weirdly, Blastprocessor now suddenly suggested the idea of compromising as if I had never been offering compromises earlier.
Usernamebradly has only ever edited the General American page, also appearing out of the blue, also this past November. Their first move was to remove sourced and relevant information. They later added information to the General American page with regard to Western New England (and with typos), strangely adding this information to the section "Popularity" rather than the more appropriate section "Regional Origins". They decided to change "American Jews" to "Russian Americans" (something I haven't yet verified) and, strangely, later added an already-cited source (and information) to an unrelated section. Mr KEBAB has also made the interesting observation that both Usernamebradly and Blastprocessor identically wrote about the "Northern City Vowel Shift", a presumed misspelling or erroneous form of "Northern Cities Vowel Shift" (with Blastprocessor later on changing to the correct spelling). Wolfdog (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd definitely miss at least a half of it if I were to write it. Thanks! Now it's my turn to match this behavior with the behavior of confirmed sockpuppets of G-Zay.
Check this out: the first thing Blastprocessor did after I mentioned the City misspelling (see [11]) was to remove my message from his talk page and reply to yours (see [12]). Isn't that strange?! It's as if he couldn't help it and showed his anger towards me by removing my message.
If Blastprocessor and Usernamebradly are indeed sockpuppets of G-Zay, then he's definitely watching your talk page. Do you remember that he used to write and instead of an in almost every message of his, sometimes even in edit summaries? Well, these accounts never make this error. I only mentioned that spelling error to you, as I didn't end up reporting those accounts (which, apparently, was a good thing because I'd just waste time and nobody would get banned). Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn it, how embarassing. Sorry for letting you down. I thought I've already posted it a week ago, now it turns out that I didn't. The problem is that I have the draft on another computer, which I won't be able to access for a few days. I'm now in a bit of trouble for overzealously defending myself on ANI, so that might get me banned for some time (or not, we'll see). I'll try to write that post again, but if they ban me before that, would you be willing to post it yourself? That is if you don't want to wait.
It was an honest mistake but, again, sorry. I'll try my best to hurry up and write it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay. Again, sorry for the wait. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: No problem. There's nothing too urgent about this for me. You kindly offered to do it, so I wasn't going to harass you about it, haha. Wolfdog (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the same time though, it did look as if I wasted your time for nothing (see above), so thanks for your understanding. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, all (and 7 more) blocked. They were faster than I expected. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow; success! Ha... it's funny, I just left a respond to Usernamebradly mere seconds ago on Talk:General American. Oh well, I guess we've been wasting our time here trying to discuss with him. Thanks for helping us not waste any more in the future. Wolfdog (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, but we'll see about that. The guy seems to have access to private proxies, so he can bypass any type of ban here. Do expect him to come back. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about this anon? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loss of vowel /u/[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, when I was fiddling again in Forvo, I stumbled across Mulki's pronunciation of the placename New York. It looked like the /u/ in New was dropped off, leaving the pronunciation to be simplified to something like ɪ‿j. Is this a phenomenon across American speakers, and is there a rule to govern when vowels can be dropped like this? I sorta have this, but I don't seem to emphasise it as much as the user above did. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 03:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: I agree that this is what she sounds like she's saying. I'm sure it's much more common to round the lips to [nʊ] in before the semivowel [j] in York. What your hearing is just an extreme variant of that. Wolfdog (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Talk page stalker :P) @Awesomemeeos: I'm not sure what you mean by dropped. Mulki's pronunciation is clearly disyllabic, and even your transcription indicates that. [ɪ‿j] differs from [ɪ j] only in that you're making explicit that [j] is glued to the preceding vowel without any pause.
With that being said, I disagree with you on the quality of the vowel, which to me sounds more like [ɨ], not [ɪ] (which would be quite abnormal in the US, only southern dialects can front the GOOSE vowel beyond the central position) and also disagree with Wolfdog on that the normal pronunciation isn't [nʊ] but [nu ~ nʉ], as the former is too lax a vowel. Normal realizations of monophthongal variants /i, u/ are tense, not lax (especially in the US). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, I'm not a very good transcriber :/ Yeah, I expected American accents to drop the /j/ instead of the /ʊ/ there. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: That's exactly right. Wolfdog (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello, Wolfdog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simplifying /n.d/ to /n/[edit]

Hi again, are you aware about this consonant simplification? I believe I heard it in general colloquial speech, and especially in conservative dialects in the north of UK. For example, I heard one guy from the UK say /ˈθʌnə/ instead of /ˈθʌndə/ for thunder. Can you further give me more examples of simplifications like these? And can you also tell me when this simplification can also occur? I don't believe it happens in every word with /nd/ Thanks! — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 21:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: No, I'm no expert on this. I do know it's well documented in AAVE, Cajun English, and some Southern American English, and I'm sure many other dialects. Even General American speakers casually and quickly pronounce words like hand /hænd/ as [heən]. Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: In Cockney, it can happen word-finally in words such as send [sen]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Okay, but then how come it doesn't mention this in the Cockney article then? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 23:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: Because nobody has bothered to add it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Maybe I should! Where did you get the reference from? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: Wells's Accents of English. There's a whole chapter on Cockney/Estuary there. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Sorry, but I'm having trouble finding it. Can you give me a page range on Cockney/Estuary? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 01:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: Pages 301-334 in the second volume. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Grrr... the pages are blocked again. Yet I did find this which makes an informal reference to the phenomenon. May I use it for the article? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 12:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: Sorry, but it has an awful lot of mistakes. It's not a good source. The AoE page you're looking for is the page 327. Wells doesn't mention send explicitly, but rather lists [ˈdæzɡənə] Dad's going to and [ˈtɜːn ˈlef] turn left. In the limited research I did on Cockney [sen] for send still seems possible to me. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I wonder how easy it is for you to understand people who undergone this split saying words like castle and after? Since you say you're from the US, I believe you don't have it. I'm Aussie, which means I have it but a few words like example, chance and transplant. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 07:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Awesomemeeos: I'm not sure how you want to measure intelligibility, but for me personally (and I'd guess most Americans) it's very easy for me to understand people with the trap-bath split, though I don't have it. In fact, I'd bet that the typical American, listening to a typical London or Sydney speaker, would be able to understand "bath" words without ever suddenly being conscious that this word set uses a different vowel sound that the "trap" set of words; this "Britishy" split is not something we Americans are really conscious of unless we deliberately study accents. The fact that "bath" words are used mostly in very common words (can't, ask, last, etc.) probably helps this intelligibility for Americans; in other words, we immediately get that "bath" word by the context. For example, if an Englishman says to a Californian something that sounds to the Californian like "I ost him about loss night" or "lost night", the Californian can, without really thinking about it, immediately "hear" this correctly as "I asked him about last night" due to context. (Hearing the isolated word "last" in an English accent out of context, however, yes, a Californian would certainly hear the word "lost." But how often do Americans and Brits/Aussies communicate only in isolated words?) Wolfdog (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mid-Atlantic unique features[edit]

Hi, quick question, but do you know any pronunciation patterns unique to Mid-Atlantic American English (not the Transatlantic)? I know of the single word on having the vowel of 'dog' and 'dawn' but that's it. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 06:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: When you say "unique to," do you mean "100% unique to" as in "not shared with any other English dialect anywhere in the world"? If so, then the on phenomenon you mention is not at all unique to the Mid-Atlantic U.S. dialect; it's also reported in most Southern, Midland, and some Western U.S. dialects. Here are some 100% unique features of the Mid-Atlantic dialect: its own special short-a split, several lexical characteristics (words/phrases), perhaps Philly's merry-Murray merger, and likely some other Philly-specific pronunciations (see Philadelphia English for details). Wolfdog (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, sorry about the confusion. What about just unique pronunciation patterns, that could be shared with other dialects. Can you please give me some more if so? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit on Mid-Atlantic Accent[edit]

You reverted my edit with the comment "It certainly was taught; how else would it have been learned?"

People generally acquire their accent by imitation and correction of their peers, rather than by being consciously "taught". The current wording suggests, misleadingly, that the Mid-Atlantic Accent was consciously "taught" in prep schools in the same way that an actor might be "taught" an accent for a particular part in a play or motion picture. This was not the case, and the cited source does not claim that it was. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grover cleveland: I'm not sure I see the distinction you're trying to make. The Labov source I backed the information up with says, verbatim, "r-less pronunciation, following Received Pronunciation was taught as a model of correct, international English by schools of speech, acting and elocution in the United States up to the end of World War II". The word "taught" is explicitly used. Wolfdog (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies! I see what happened: the original text (to which I objected) stated that the accent was "carefully taught at American boarding schools". I see now that the "undo" edit was not in fact a reversion to the previous text; I have no problem with the claim that it was taught "in elocution classes". I should have been less hasty before leaving a message on your talk page. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Vowel Shift[edit]

I didn't change the material. I only made some typographical changes, as generally it doesn't seem appropriate to give a title to one lonely sentence. So think about this. I didn't change the content.--Flamenc (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Flamenc: I'm sorry. I completely misread the change! Apologies. Wolfdog (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, we all make mistakes trying to make wikipedia better. Happy Newyear! --Flamenc (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taft and "modest" means[edit]

Hi there Wolfdog -- I don't want to start a revert war, but I'd like to note that the article on Taft uses the word describing a "modest house in Mount Auburn," but the article on the neighborhood describes it thus: "Mount Auburn was founded as a hilltop retreat for Cincinnati's social elite where wealthier people could escape the dirt, heat, smoke and crowded conditions of the lower city. Ornate historic mansions with incredible panoramic views still reflect this heritage." So a modest house within the context of the elite, perhaps. My real concern is the source, but I wanted to let you know I am not simply trying to be argumentative. -- Best, BCorr|Брайен 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bcorr: I take your concerns to be in good faith. The full sentence is actually "The Taft family was not wealthy, living in a modest home in the suburb of Mount Auburn", directly saying the family itself was not wealthy and therefore also modest. However, a quick Google search does show that the family was distinguished and politically active; perhaps the Taft page should be amended. It appears that he attended public school, but at least one source says he attended private school! Anyway, Taft still clearly has a rhotic accent in his speech, and what do you mean that your real concern is the source? Wolfdog (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Epenthetic /r/[edit]

Hi, I've just discovered this phenomenon, where words such as wash and water sound like warsh and warter. Which rhotic dialects feature this, and what other words can be affected? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 10:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though this guy is clearly not a linguist, he at least pinpoints the area and origin based on what linguists have said: [13]. Wolfdog (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irish English vowels[edit]

Apparently I tried to read from John Well's book about this, but a lot of it was cut off. It says that the vowel sets TRAP, BATH and PALM are usually merged, and that it depends on the word whether the vowel is broad or not. For example the words ant and aunt are usually homophones, and even the BATH and PALM words sometimes sound like THOUGHT.

I also managed to capture that the CLOTH vowel doesn't match up with American English, where 'bog' has the CLOTH vowel and 'boggy' has LOT instead.

So the question is: Do you know more about this, and is there a way to predict when it comes to these circumstances? Sorry if this looks overwhelming, but I do want to know. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 12:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look under the "Pure Vowels" table here to help with your Irish English wonderings.
In my accent and probably most GenAm accents, bog and boggy have the same vowel: /ɑ/. Many Americans (Northern New Englanders, most Westerners, many Midlanders, Western Pennsylvanians, etc.) and especially, increasingly, younger Americans everywhere, have a cot-caught merger that nullifies the entire distinction you speak of. I do not have a cot-caught merger and so actually I do retain a kind of split in "-og" words. Bog, cog, clog, flog, fog, frog, hog, log, Prague, slog, and smog I pronounce with /ɑg/. On the other hand, the single word dog I pronounce with /ɔg/ (specifically [ɒg] or [ɒəg]). I've never been aware that it was just this one word until right now, thinking about it with the help of a rhyming dictionary. However, looking in the Handbook of Varieties of English, I see that my situation is pretty typical of someone born in the NYC metropolitan area: "For the highly variable class of "short o" words with /g/, New Yorkers tend to have /ɑ/ in hog, frog, fog, and log, but /ɔ/ in dog" and later also describes this as a pronunciation too of Philadelphia and throughout the whole South. On the other hand, of Inland Northerners, it says the "unrounded /ɑ/ also appears in hog, fog, and frog, while dog and log generally have /ɔ/", so there is a two-extra-word difference around the Great Lakes region, rather than a one-extra-word difference. Of the Midland and Western dialects, it's said that there are possibly Southern-like "variants of /ɔ/ as upgliding diphthongs, that is [ɔu] or [ɔo]. These variants are particularly common in the context of a following /g/ as in dog or log. They have been recorded in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri and can certainly be heard elsewhere in the Midwest as well", though I'd bet these are fairly sparse, rather than mainstream in those region.
Anyway, directly responding to your query: I've never heard of an accent that uses a different vowel for bog versus boggy, though honestly I've never used or heard of the word boggy anyway. Does it just mean "related to a bog"? Wolfdog (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern American English phonemic incidences + cleaning request[edit]

Hello again. Are there any words that are irregularly pronounced in Southern American English? Things like pronouncing aunt as ain't and Mrs as Miss. And what words do not have final /oʊ/ pronounced as [ə]? Plus, can you please check Cajun English's phonology? It looks quite crap, tbh. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 23:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure there are several. Check out the article on that topic and Vaux's nationwide study. Where is it that we already discussed the final /oʊ/ situation? Yeah, Cajun English can still be improved. Handbook of Varieties of English has an entire "Cajun Vernacular English: phonology" chapter. Wolfdog (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accents of English[edit]

Hello, Wolfdog. I was looking at my talk page and noticed that you sent me a message back in October 2014. I don't think that I ever responded.

First, I sincerely apologise. I'm not sure how I missed it. It's too long ago for me to remember what was going on in October 2014.

Second, I still have the book. Is there anything that you'd like me to check in it?

Sorry if I am >3 years too late! Epa101 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Epa101@ Ha. It's OK. I'm not sure what I was looking for exactly at that time. Nowadays, anything related to "General American" would probably be of the most interest. Wolfdog (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 23 pages on General American in Volume 3. Please let me know if you'd like me to look anything up. Epa101 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Page Edit[edit]

If were going to keep that section, the we need to accurately put what's in the source. "These standards came to be based on the speech of the Inland Northeast and the Northern Midwest regions, whose dialect group, Inland Northern, had a plurality of speakers in America by the 1930s." This specifically means the Inland Northern section of the North, which is where John Kenyon's speech came from. Chimerusso (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Chimerusso: In my opinion, we were already being accurate. Writing "Inland Northern" with a link to that WP page easily misleads readers into thinking it is the modern Inland Northern dialect (which was only recognized as unique in the 1960s and later). We're talking about a more generic Northern dialect (yes, overlapping with what is now known as the Inland North) that is separate from the modern-day Inland North. Wolfdog (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We need to state what's in the source. The source specifically states the "Inland Northern" region. Chimerusso (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Chimerusso: We were already doing that, but in a way that's also not misleading to readers. The "non-coastal North" is synonymous with the "Inland North", except that "Inland North" is misleading for reasons I already explained. Wolfdog (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I cannot agree. We need to keep it as it states exactly in the source. The reason I was for taking it out earlier, is because the "Northern" region as a whole, is not part of General American Today. "By the 2000s, American sociolinguist William Labov concluded that, if anything could be regarded as "General American", it would essentially be a convergence of those pronunciation features shared by Western American English, Midland American English, and (Standard) Canadian English" Charles Broberg, who also helped write ANAE, states in his book that California would be the accurate standard for today's "General American." The way the articles is written now, acts as if the Northern region is still the standard, when it's not. Chimerusso (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I'm not sure what you "cannot agree" about. I'm not saying anything untrue; I'm trying to use a synonym that doesn't direct readers to confusing information. Since the source also specifies "Inland Northeast and the Northern Midwest", how about we compromise and use that designation instead of either of the ones we preferred up front? That is also verbatim what source says, just like you want. Wolfdog (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Well, I don't really think we should use either. I think it misinforms people into thinking that regional section is the standard, when people such as Labov and Broberg have stated otherwise. The Standard has changed a lot during the 20th century. The Northern region is not General American today. Many linguist don't believe today that "General American" exist. I feel we should remove that whole part. If we do keep it, then we need to add what Labov stated. The ANAE is sourced all over these accent related wikipedia pages. If not, then I think were misleading people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimerusso (talkcontribs) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Banning this guy is pretty much a matter of hours. Don't feed him, it's not worth your time. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • @Mr KEBAB: Yeah, I was figuring that this might be what was really happening. We really need a better way to protect this page, unfortunately. Wolfdog (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • The best thing we can do is to be observant. He might be very good at avoiding blocks here, but he's pretty terrible at appearing as different people (maybe he doesn't even try, I don't know). It doesn't take much to spot him. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Done. User has been banned as a sockpuppet of G-Zay. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G-Zay :) Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: I don't know how you work your anti-vandalism magic, but I'm being reverted or challenged by more users than ever, and I'm growing paranoid of sockpuppets. Most are anons. But one is named "Strenxfong". Know anything? Wolfdog (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Strenxfong guy is suspicious. The fact that all of his edits concern either AmE or you says it all really. In his message to you on his talk page, he mentions Eastern New England English, an article which two months ago was edited by one of the hundreds sockpuppets of G-Zay called Videoneon (see [14]). This is enough to report him.
I'm not sure about the anons. Could you list them? Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: You're so good! 2600:8805:3800:4340:c4a6:b8fa:ab02:8add is the main one. They seem to have disappeared for now. Wolfdog (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, thanks. The 2600 guy doesn't look like a sockpuppet to me, he's probably just an edit warrior. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I brought up ENE is because he has made edits on this page in the last 24 hours, and I was giving examples where lead sections give Phonetic details. On my talk page, I said we should discuss these reverts before any other edits are made to the page. Strenxfong (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are legitimate, I hope you see that my suspicions are warranted. Wolfdog (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha! Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not buying this. Your MO makes me at least 80% sure that you're just another sockpuppet. I'll let admins check that.
Regardless of whether you are one or not, G-Zay sockpuppets seem to have an agenda of getting revenge on Wolfdog by making him seem like a fool whenever he doesn't realize that it's one and the same user he's speaking to. Whoever is doing that, he's strange. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My edits had everything to do with page content. I wasn't personally attacking or insulting anyone. He asked me to "please discuss" before any further editing was done. That's why I took this to my talk page. What is taking on revenge have anything to do with this? The other user, which I'm being accused of, made Boston accent related edits, had nothing to do with insulting. I see nowhere where I engaged in any sort of "revenge" or "trolling" activity. Strenxfong (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about G-Zay, not you. If you're not G-Zay, what's the problem?
Here's the report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: I'm sorry to involve you for the umpteenth time, but here's yet another user who seems to have it out for me: Supermos127. Is there some way for me to report that my edits are being constantly reverted by sockpuppets or otherwise take some preemptive action against this continuing, ongoing nonsense? You seem to know WP policy a lot better than me and this is obviously a continuous kind of harassment. Wolfdog (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can go ahead and report him per WP:DUCK and expect a quick ban. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accents of the US[edit]

Hello Wolfdog,

  1. I am aware of a book called The Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States, which was mentioned in Rural white Southern accents, but I cannot access that book. I just wanteto know about all the phonemic incidences that are mentioned in the Gulf States book (see page 6 of the pdf for example).
  2. There is a shortening of GOOSE vowels to FOOT in words like room and root, but I want to know on what words does this occur (probably if it follows a /r/), where this occurs in the States (New England and Midwest?) and if The Atlas of North American English has any commentary about this.

Any help on any of these will make me gratefully relieved. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 11:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Awesomemeeos: I'm afraid I have no information on LAGS. As for the root and roof words, check out Bert Vaux's Harvard dialect maps here. I know nothing more than this. Wolfdog (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh okay. I might ping @Nardog and Mr KEBAB: if they have any knowledge of it. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 02:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Awesomemeeos: In General American, /uː/ and /ʊ/ don't really contrast before /r/. They're typically analyzed as /ʊ/ and pronounced as close to [u]. This could be true of many regional dialects, but I haven't done any serious research on it. I'm far from being an expert on North American dialects. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well, Awesomemeeos was just talking about /uː/ and /ʊ/ after /r/, so, Mr KEBAB, why are you bringing up that they don't really contrast before /r/? Are you just starting a new topic of discussion? If so, can you give examples of what you mean? My impression is that many dialects outside of GenAm do this as well. Wolfdog (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Ha, brainfart. I misunderstood if it follows a /r/ to mean the opposite of what it does. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The addition you added was borderline gibberish[edit]

The word "coal" popped up constantly for no reason, and I'm pretty sure there were some Vietnamese words in there. Serendipodous 07:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well, there's no more gibberish than that which you just wrote above. Reverting your reverts now. Wolfdog (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is really cool[edit]

Hi, I just found this video of two guys based around North Carolina speaking in a very strong Southern accent. I was quite blown away people actually spoke like this, even in a modern-day situation as mentioned here. They mention about stereotypes about their accent and discuss about it. The GOAT vowel, for some reason, sounds really satisfying, it's far fronter than other American accents I've heard before.

Please tell me on your opinion about the sound of the accent and if you've heard anything like this before. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 13:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Awesomemeeos: Yeah, I love the sound in that video. That is a very perfect example of what Labov would call an Inland Southern accent (i.e. a strong, rural, white Southern accent). Honestly, their accent isn't bizarre for their area but actually seems to check off all the typical features of the Inland South, including, yes, strong GOAT fronting (which is found throughout an entire Southeastern super-region of the USA). Good find. Wolfdog (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, I had some training, but I guess I didn't follow the instructions. Really have felt lost on this project since day one. My sandbox is full of stuff that might as well be deleted. In text citing or redirects to other wikipages I thought I had right but I guess not. I appreciate you telling me what I am doing wrong. I will just keep working on it,I guess I should re-watch the trainings Jason Hall UA (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving pages[edit]

I took care of your request at WP:RMTR, but just want to let you know, in case you don't already, that you can move pages yourself over a redirect as long as there haven't been any additional edits there yet. Station1 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Station1: Thanks! I always thought I'd been prevented from doing that. Appreciate it! Wolfdog (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't object to the allegations of socking being evaluated, but I want to work out the issues with Mr KEBAB and Kbb2 before doing so. If you haven't already done so, see User talk:Kbb2. After that's been resolved, a properly structured report may be opened. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bbb23: I appreciate your explanation and understand. I was just about to try to (I'm no WP policy expert) more properly structure an investigations report. Would you like me to hold off for now, then? And, when I do so, may I still copy and paste most of what Kbb2 wrote without it getting reverted again (since he has already done the grunt-work for this)? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's hold off and see what Kbb2's response is to my comments. If they don't respond in a reasonable time, I'll let you know that you can file the report. Copying and pasting is fine. The instructions on the structure are at WP:SPI. I'd use that along with copying/pasting. I'll keep you posted on the status. If too much time elapses and you haven't heard from me, feel free to ping me here. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23: Thanks so much. Sounds good! Wolfdog (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Officer781 has done the same thing you did, although the report they filed is properly structured. I could reject it again, but given the lack of response by Kbb2, such a rejection would probably be form over substance. I assume you have nothing vested in being the one who copies it - you just wanted to make sure it was filed. I'm mainly updating you because I promised.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23: You're right in that I have nothing vested in who does it. (If anything, I didn't want to do it, but saw another user's hard work potentially going to waste, and I've supported his intentions for bringing these sockpuppets to light from weeks ago.) Thanks so much for allowing it and I appreciate the update. Wolfdog (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23: Sorry, I did not see this. I simply thought that it wasn't filed properly and just thrown out. Either way I am new in handling people issues on Wikipedia. Do let me know what your intentions are and I'll try to follow.--Officer781 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Officer781: No worries. You and Wolfdog were both acting in good faith. Although I may change my mind later, at this point I'm going to let a clerk take a look before I take any action. That may take a while, though, because of the backlog. Also, it's tough to ask the real filer any questions because they don't appear to be interested in editing here. Ah well, one step at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NURSE vs. GOAT[edit]

Moved from Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences#Laboratory. Let's stay on topic.

Regarding your latest post on Help talk:IPA/English regarding the /ɜː−əʊ/ distinction, you have to listen to the second portion of the vowel. NURSE is always a monophthong whereas GOAT ends in a close central unrounded vowel [əɨ]. Perhaps training yourself to produce cardinal [ɨ] will help perceiving it correctly (actually, it almost certainly will). Non-rhotic Britons never use [ɜː] for GOAT unless the velarized allophone of /l/ follows (in this position it's even a part of RP). I'm answering here in order not to derail that massive thread there. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I know I must listen to the second portion of the vowel. And I've never argued that non-rhotic Britons use [ɜː] for goat. However, it's very hard to hear the vowel between consonants in a single isolated word in a quickly- and casually-spoken sentence.
If it interests you to say so, what do you hear in those Youtube clips? Wolfdog (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it ever hinder intelligiblity?
I'll listen to them and answer on Help talk:IPA/English. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I'd rather answer here. Most if not almost all of the recordings Nardog provided in [15] contain /ɜː/.
Here, certainly no speaker uses /ɜː/, all use /oʊ/. The predominant phonetic realization in these clips seems to be [əʉ], but there also are cases of [əɨ], [əʊ] and [oː]. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kbb2: Yep. So right along the lines of what I heard but was nervous to imply. Wolfdog (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This /iə/ means "[i.ə], [ɪ.ə], [jə] or the [ɪ̯ə] variant of the NEAR vowel (only in non-rhotic accents)". It's based on how LPD treats words such as this one. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • So what does it mean for rhotic accents? Wolfdog (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The first three variants appear in rhotic accents. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Mid-Atlantic accent[edit]

Hi! Can you give me a gist please of exactly what it says on pages 25-26 of Milla, Robert McColl (2012). English Historical Sociolinguistics? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at the preview. We can find other refs if you don't feel this is sufficient.
-- MC (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Map of American English (simple)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Map of American English (simple) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Jersey English#African American dialect[edit]

The information is sourced in a section of the very article cited on the page:

Local variations New York City AAVE incorporates some local features of the New York accent, including its high thought vowel; meanwhile, conversely, Pittsburgh AAVE may merge this same vowel with the lot vowel, matching the cot-caught merger of white Pittsburgh accents. AAVE accents traditionally do not have the cot-caught merger. Memphis, Atlanta, and Research Triangle AAVE incorporates the dress vowel raising and face vowel lowering associated with white Southern accents. Memphis and St. Louis AAVE is developing, since the mid-twentieth century, an iconic merger of the vowels in square and nurse, making there sound like thurr.[86]

In addition, there are links to other Wikipedia pages throughout the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:808C:2700:E908:A4EE:7AAF:53E6 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, I am from New Jersey and know firsthand that the previous iteration of this post is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:808C:2700:E908:A4EE:7AAF:53E6 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge of American Theater Standard into mid-Atlantic accent[edit]

Hi there,

This is a bit late, but I've just noticed the merge of American Theater Standard into Mid-Atlantic accent, I'm surprised this was done without any kind of discussion, as recommended in Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger. It appears that a substantial amount of material was lost (compare the final version of the "American Theater Standard" page with the "Mid-Atlantic accent" page post-merge), including a number of citations and references. Could these be restored? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grover cleveland: I don't think a restoration at this point would be advised. Why don't you start a new discussion topic at the talk page of Mid-Atlantic accent and bring up specific grievances there. What relevant information, for example, do you feel was lost? (Respond on that talk page.) Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello, Wolfdog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text duplication[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, you duplicated most of the text in the article Ideasthesia with your edit . Please check, which sections have to be removed. --GünniX (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC) @GünniX: Whoops! Good catch, sorry! Wolfdog (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holocene extinction: Revision as of 17:04, 16 February 2013[edit]

Hi, hope you are well. I am doing research for a project and would like to know where you got some of your information/data from relating to the page Holocene extinction (Revision as of 17:04, 16 February 2013). Specifically I would like to know where you got this information/data from, "the current rate of extinction is, therefore, 10 to 100 times higher than any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth", because it is not cited/referenced and I am battling to fine any scientific articles correlate. Thank you. African Golden Cat (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello! I'm wondering why my Global Account Information says "Registered: 16:04, March 17, 2015 (4 years ago)" when I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006. What's the difference between being an editor (with a user-name) and being "registered"? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to ask at the Help Desk but I think that date or right around there is when all accounts on all Wikimedia projects were made global across said projects; you can log in to any Wikimedia project with this account(you could not before). 331dot (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because accounts across Wikimedia wikis were unified in 2015. See WP:SUL. Nardog (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wolfdog. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3 RR warning[edit]

Stop driving an edit war. --evrik (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Evrik: The same to you. You also keep leaving typos, so check yourself please before you accuse me of warring. You'll also already see I've tried to open a conversation on the relevant talk page. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll take it to the talk page. --evrik (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returning pages for San Francisco English/Mission Brogue and Inland California English[edit]

Hey there! IF you remember me, I was the author on the new new dialect pages of San Francisco English and Inland California English. I saw that you took down my pages, shortened them and grouped them together on the California English page. I put many hours of work on those pages, reading through sources, listening to audio recordings to confirm that the sources matched up with what one might hear normally, writing the pages themselves, etc. and I would really like the original pages to be restored as independent articles. I feel that the independent articles give the dialects more detail than the abbreviated versions you put on the California English page. I could do this on my own, but I wanted to discuss this with you before that so we don't get into some sort of back and forth changing things. Again, I also just want to say thanks for the advice you gave and the improvements you made to those original pages. I also don't mean to be attacking you in any way with this—you have more experience on Wikipedia than I do. I was just very proud of those pages I made and would enjoy seeing them restored. Thank you!EagleyeB101 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Eagleye. I'm going to copy your message over to Talk:California English and respond there. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just posted this on the talk page for California English:

To start, I apologize if the formatting for this reply seems incorrect or looks strange—I'm not entirely sure how to make this reply look like a "reply". Since your last message, I've just been waiting to see if anyone else had any input and mulling over the best course to take with the Inland California English page and San Francisco English/Mission Brogue page. I understand that the names for those two dialects are not readily known by the general public or agreed upon by experts—that was actually a problem I ran into particularly for the San Francisco page. Considering this, I wouldn't want to put the information on those two topics in some place where they would not be readily seen by readers of Wikipedia. However, with merging these two articles under California English along with the other dialects already on this page, I feel that the page has drifted away from what is typical for most dialect/accent pages. Before, the California English page was fairly restricted to describing the Urban california dialect marked by the California Vowel Shift. Now, with the page's additional information on California's inland varieties and the moribund San Francisco variety, two varieties that do not hold very similar features or histories with the general Urban California variety. (San Francisco English could not even be considered a member of Western American English due to its lack of a cot-caught merger and backed /u/ pronunciations which were present even among non-Mission Brogue speakers.) Typically from what I have found on Wikipedia, accents tend to be grouped on the same page based on similar linguistic grouping, not solely geographic. The example you gave of New England English is actually a perfect example of a dialect grouping with both linguistic and geographic ties. I feel that the page for California English has drifted too far into grouping its sub-dialects based on their similar geography rather than linguistic features. Just as I want the information for Inland California English and San Francisco English, I also wouldn't want to give the wrong idea that the three main dialects in question are necessarily closely related. So, how about we keep the sub-articles for Inland California English and San Francisco English/Mission Brogue on this page, but also bring back their independent pages with a "main article" link? I could also re-word the introduction of California English to put a special emphasis on California's urban variety (what most people think of) and clarify that the two others do not necessarily fall under the same classification. This would create a similar style page to the Western American English page—there is precedent for this. Thanks for reading this far!EagleyeB101 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't ping EagleyeB101 there. A notification will be sent only if a link to a user page is included in a new line preceding a signature. Whenever you've forgot to ping, I recommend linking to their user page in the summary, which is another way to send a notification. See Help:Notifications and Help:Fixing failed pings. Nardog (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ayayay. Thanks. Well how about if I use {{u|...}}? Does that inevitably work? I just need whatever code will work without fail every time. Wolfdog (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nardog, so like this? Why in the world does such a specific constraint exist? Wolfdog (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{u}} is just a shorthand for [[User:...|...]], nothing fancy. {{ping}} is no different; the only difference is that the latter supports pinging multiple users at once.
Just don't forget to do it the first time around, and use the edit summary should you ever do. If the constraints didn't exist you would be getting notifications every time someone edits an existing conversation in which you were mentioned/have participated, archives it, etc. Nardog (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. That does make some sense, ha. Thanks. I feel like this is the second time you've explained this to me. My apologies. Wolfdog (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essex and Kent[edit]

Hello, Wolfdog. I apologise for the misguided edit to the table on dialects of English. I didn't realise that the separate articles for Essex and Kent dialect are gone. That must have been a fairly recent change.

Do you happen to know why they were removed and searches re-directed to Estuary English? It doesn't seem to have been discussed on the talk page for Estuary English.

I have some reservations about this change. First, I'm not sure why Essex and Kent were removed but Surrey and Sussex were not. There are some areas of Essex and Kent that are still quite distinct from speech in London. For example, the north-east of Essex (e.g. Colchester) is still noticeable East Anglian and Peter Trudgill still includes this corner of Essex in his East Anglia dialect area. In Kent, the area around Aylesham has a dialect with some northern features, owing to the fact that most of the Kent miners moved large distances for work. Are there any areas left of Surrey or Sussex that have distinct dialects now? Epa101 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Epa101:. No need to apologize. I decided to wp:be bold and merged, mainly because both dialects were poorly-defined and largely appeared to be subsets or earlier versions of either Estuary dialect or the East Anglian dialect. For example, if Colchester is East Anglian, that should be discussed at the page East Anglian English. Indeed, it's very common that linguistic boundaries do not conform to our rigid political/territorial boundaries. Look at the current setup for the American dialect pages New Jersey English, Pennsylvania English, or Midwestern American English, for example. As you can see with the merger, I also tried to make a special section for the two dialects and to carry over the more credible of the sources that existed. Meanwhile, Surrey and Sussex have much fuller descriptions, showing they are better-defined and better-sourced. Wolfdog (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, @Wolfdog:. Thanks for the quick response. I can see your thinking there. I have some interest in Essex dialect. Unfortunately most of the sources on Essex are glossaries of words rather than phonological analyses, and glossaries are more for Wiktionary than Wikipedia. I don't know as much about Kent, although I know that it was still rhotic at the time of the Survey of English Dialects (as were Surrey and Sussex). I'm not sure how many rhotic speakers are left there now. Cheers Epa101 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epa101: Oh, I didn't know that about rhoticity, except that rhoticity in general seems to have been much more widespread around England before the mid-20th century. Yeah, unfortunately phonological analyses are the kind of source that's really powerful. Glossaries are often of terms used even as far back as the 19th century — long-extinct lexical features. (The 19th century version of my own home dialect reportedly used many words I've never heard uttered by any speaker from my region, young or old!) Perhaps phonological analyses are simply lacking all over the world. I've recently been trying to do more research into Irish English dialects (I'm aware there are many), yet I can practically find nothing outside the work of a single scholar, Raymond Hickey. He seems to have a monopoly on the topic; it's disheartening. Wolfdog (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfdog: Just out of interest, what is the 19th Century book on your dialect? I'd quite like to look at it. It is the same for me (and probably most places). I was born in Wakefield in Yorkshire. William Stott Banks wrote a book on the Wakefield dialect in 1865, which is now past copyright and can be read here. Most of the words in it are gone. He didn't use phonetic symbols, but his re-spelling scheme coincides very well with Joseph Wright's work on nearby Windhill, a few decades later. Epa101 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epa101: It's not necessarily books, though I think I am in fact thinking of one: American Regional Dialects by Craig Carver (1989) which I finally buckled down and bought a few years ago since I was seeing it cited everywhere, yet I ended up immensely disappointed. It purely divided the country based on lexical features, whereas I find phonological features more significant in differentiating linguistic regions. But just for a quick glance, here's a typical source presenting a single page of words that supposedly represent modern lexical features of which the majority are absolutely extinct; meanwhile, (the other extreme!) a minority have simply become nationwide, mainstream American terms! I'd be happy to get into the specifics, if you so request. Wolfdog (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You might want to check out Vermont#Vermont speech patterns and Talk:Vermont#Clarify?. It's messy there, but I'm hesitant to chime in because I don't know a source to replace the terrible pop source cited there. Nardog (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a similar mess at Rhode Island#Local accent. You might want to take a stab at it. Nardog (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[ɚ] vs. [ɹ][edit]

I'm really sorry my summary came out that way. While I didn't mean it to be about you, I shouldn't have said it and I apologize.

As we've discussed, ɚ is a syllabic version of ɹ and ɹ is a non-syllabic version of ɚ, making equivalent ɹ and ɚ̯, and ɚ and ɹ̩ (now I know a better reference: IPA Handbook, p. 25). We know that Kretzschmar didn't intend ɚ to represent a syllabic sound. But our readers might not, while ɚ represents a syllabic sound in the canonical IPA. Therefore I can't think of a good reason to use ɚ just because the source uses it (anyone with a modicum understanding of phonetics knows that using ɹ wouldn't be a violation of verifiablity or NOR, and that's what I meant). Nardog (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nardog, I appreciate the apology. You can see, after our long discussion on /æ/ raising, why I was a little shocked that it seemed like you no longer cared about exact phonetics taken verbatim from sources. I understand your point about equating ⟨ɹ⟩ and ⟨ɚ̯⟩ if that's been our WP norm. I have one subjective/impressionistic pushback, and then I'll can concede. The General American pronunciation of there, for example, uses [ɛɚ] or essentially [ɛəɹ] but not [ɛɹ], which for me is phonotactically distinct. To be fair, this is likely because I have a Mary-merry distinction in my pronunciation, allowing me to perceive the difference quite clearly -- but still. I think this is the only r-colored vowel whose representation using your preferred system would cause me misgivings. But it wouldn't be the end of the world. Wolfdog (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, Kretzschmar is using ɚ as equivalent to əɹ, which is not standard IPA usage so we should avoid it anyway. And the realization with [əɹ] isn't even the case when it comes to START, NORTH/FORCE, and prevocalic NEAR/SQUARE/CURE (as he notes on p. 266). How about ditching ɚ and splitting the rows about NEAR/SQUARE/CURE to illustrate the difference between e.g. [nɪəɹ] and [nɪɹɪŋ]? Nardog (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'll accept that. Wolfdog (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. To be clear, I never said phonetic symbols should be taken from sources verbatim. If a source is using an IPA symbol in a non-standard way or using an obsolete symbol, accommodations must be made because not doing so would be to misrepresent the source. The problem I had with the /æ/ raising template in particular is that it was, or seemed to be, using æ and ɛə as shorthands for lax and tense, not that the symbols weren't in the text of the sources. Nardog (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nardog: Sorry, I misinterpreted your first comment above with regards to my recent lettER/NURSE edit. Wolfdog (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Online etymology DB[edit]

This appears to be a self-published amateur site (see thread at WP:RSN). It does draw on some reputable sources, but we should be using those instead I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garza and Schwartz[edit]

Do you have any reliable source supporting this? Because to me it looks like Schwartz is her Jewish stepfather's surname. She was likely born with another name that she doesn't mention. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Binksternet: No, sorry, I was just assuming. Wolfdog (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am well aware that there is a rhotic pronunciation of -shire, and I agree that it is entirely reasonable to give it in the article. The problem is exclusively that the citation given is only for the non-rhotic version. It does not support your addition. So if your edit is to stand, it needs to go after the citation mark. Ideally it should have another citation but it is not essential since it is credible. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: 1. I already provided an American dictionary citation about 3 minutes after the edit you're talking about. 2. I believe our diaphonemic system and intuition overrides the need for every "-shire" article to have both American and British citations, but that's just my assumption. Wolfdog (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the second citation is exactly what I had in mind. Thank you.
As to the general question of pronunciation in all the '-shire' articles: IMO, if the article gives a credible non-rhotic IPA pronunciation without a citation, then it is entirely reasonable to add a credible rhotic IPA alongside, again without citation, per your #2. And viceversa of course. There is only a problem when one of the two pronunciations is cited: as with any cited text anywhere, it is not permissible to insert new material between the original text and its citation (unless the the citation covers both). The new material must be appended. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak vowel merger in Ulster English[edit]

Hi. Do you know whether there is a weak vowel merger in Ulster English? Does that variety of English distinguish except from accept? Do they have a schwa in rabbit? Sol505000 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sol505000: The short answer is I don't know. The longer answer is I sense that the weak-vowel merger is more widespread (even in the UK) and muddier than how it's typically characterized. Coming from a dialect that has the merger, it's quite difficult for me to hear the distinction even in supposedly unmerged British speech, yet I notice dictionaries (like Lexico or Merriam-Webster) do an inconsistent or even bad job of representing which merger-related vowel tends to be used in General American English, for example, saying careless is /ˈkɛrləs/ in GenAm, even though it's certainly /ˈkɛrlɪs/ (more precisely transcribed, IMHO, by Anyway, unfortunately, I'm not sure how Ulster operates in this regard; please notify me if you get to the bottom of this! Wolfdog (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, just a caution that Wells's Accents of English is approaching 40 years old, so it's not always going to be the most up-to-date source. Wolfdog (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but if Ulster English featured the weak vowel merger 40 years ago it couldn't have been undone that quickly. In fact, I don't know any accent in which the merger was undone.
I'll share my findings. Thanks for the response! Sol505000 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha... I was more suggesting that the merger is expanding in various dialects globally, so the feature could have entered Ulster English in the last 40 years. Wolfdog (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could have. But (AFAIK) it couldn't have entered Scottish English, where KIT is phonetically a lot like a schwa. In Scotland, except has an initial schwa and accept an initial STRUT. I was wondering whether Ulster English is the same in that regard. All I know is that the KIT vowel is similar if not almost the same in both accents (save for the broad [æ]-like realization in Ulster), which makes me wonder whether it's distinct from the schwa in Ulster. Sol505000 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
for example, saying careless is /ˈkɛrləs/ in GenAm, even though it's certainly /ˈkɛrlɪs/ That makes little sense to me. The weak vowel merger means no contrast between /ɪ/ and /ə/ in unstressed syllables, so /ˈkɛrləs/ is the correct phonemic notation for the pronunciation with the merger, regardless of the phonetic quality of the merged vowel (unless you're wacky enough to transcribe all schwas as /ɪ/). Dictionaries are indeed inconsistent about this, even though the merger is present in most if not all American accents (Flemming & Johnson 2007:95). Wells mentions this in the preface to LPD, saying such vowels are transcribed as /ɪ/ before palato-alveolar and velar consonants (and in prefixes re-, e-, de- until 2nd ed.) unless "no separate indication is given for AmE", where the merger is only implicit.
As you noted, even American dictionaries transcribe the second syllables in havoc/civic, gamut/summit, hammock/comic differently. AFAIU this is owing to GA having never been fully codified like RP was (Krapp, Kenyon, Bronstein, et al. tried but Labov killed it, to the delight of descriptivists and to the dismay of EFL learners), but I see this becoming more of a problem in the coming decades as the merger spreads and gains prestige in the UK as well (Lindsey's model in English After RP assumes the merger). Nardog (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

revert on Southern American English[edit]

Hello. THe page as it reads after your revert of my edit makes it seem that the only place in WV with southern speech is an island around Charleston in the middle of the state. The map on pg. 126 of the ANAE, which is cited as your source on the changes you yourself made some months ago, shows the lower half of WV within the southern dialect region. WV has only a few references in the article and as it stands misrepresent the extent of southern speech in WV. Please edit the article to please yourself, but also please address the extent of southern dialect for the state as a whole. Dubyavee (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, ANAE map isoglosses tend to be quite rough, but looking at p. 126, I do see that it's not merely Charleston but also Huntington defined under the Southern dialect area. (West Virginia only has three cities identified by the ANAE -- I previously thought just two.) I suppose two cities is enough for us to generalize as "southern Western Virginia". Thanks for digging up that page number. Sorry for the revert. Wolfdog (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision of North American English[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that "All of [the citations you ask for are] provided on the main page General American itself". A look at that page shows that there is no mention of θ-stopping, clear [l] as a marker of Hispanicness, or the precise locations of non-rhoticity in the US --- I am also confused why you would make this statement since you have contributed to the General American English page yourself and are obviously familiar with its contents. I would like to stress that I do not disagree with any of these statements; however, it is clearly in a reader's best interest to be able to look up the sources of these claims if they are so inclined. For example, if a student of mine were interested in socioeconomic indexicals, it would be helpful to me if they could be directed to a source. RSXS (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RSXS: Gotcha. Sorry, I think I should've said American English#Phonology. If you don't see anything cited there, let me know and I'll find a source. Wolfdog (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Multilingual Origins of Standard English[edit]

Apropos of nothing, I just read this introduction to this book, and it reminded me of your contributions. It may not quite line up with your usual area of interest, and it certainly doesn't with mine, but I found it fascinating. Nardog (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool! Thanks so much! Wolfdog (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May2021: Inland Northern American English[edit]

Regarding your reversion of my good faith edit, I can see why it looked unconstructive. Let me explain:

  • I used "Labov" because Labov's entire name had already been mentioned in an earlier paragraph. It would be both repetitive and possibly promotional to repeat the full name.
  • Forgive my typo, as I need to get new glasses. As for changing "historical understandings" to "historical analysis", I did not want Wikipedia to sound like Borat. I have noticed that many articles on academic subjects are written by "learners" in somewhat unconventional English.

I hope you agree with me; if I don't hear back soon, I'll change it to my original intended version, sans typos. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small comment[edit]

Use a template (such as <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|date=|first=|last=|website=|access-date=}}</ref>) when citing sources. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you saying use a complete citation as opposed to merely <ref>Citation with elements in the correct order</ref>? Wolfdog (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. If someone were to make an error in your style of citations, a bot would not be able to spot it. It's just more simple to have a template and can help improve Wiki in the long run. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try to remember in the future, though I find it more irritating. (I invariably screw up one or more of the elements... usually at least twice!) Wolfdog (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects can have categories[edit]

FYI, redirects can have categories and there are frequently good reasons to do so. A big example is, WikiProject Astronomy made a reasonable decision to put all star articles at their constellation-based names, e.g. Alpha Centauri. But many bright stars also have official individual historical names. It would be impossible to create a category of traditional star names without putting categories on redirects. So please stop taking categories off redirects. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I only did it once, but I will avoid it in the future. Never knew all this. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Many thanks for your c/e at Socrates. If you are unsure of the meaning of a sentence, pls don't hesitate to ask. Cinadon36 04:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wolfdog. Thanks for the edits and source. I had to tigten up the former a little; more significantly. I removed the source you gave - not because there was much wrong with it, but you used it in the introduction, and introductions in Wikipedia articles are intended to summarise (without sourcing if possible) material already in the main article. Ive moved your source to a later section, where it seems to support the material (though in a somewhat generalised fashion). Cheers, Haploidavey (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Haploidavey: It depends on the WP page, but I see that the page in question follows that intro convention. The only thing I'd alter is "and following the Roman conquest of Greece" is technically more like "up until and also following the Roman conquest of Greece", which I realize is a bit of odd wording. Maybe you can think of some cleaner grammar. Wolfdog (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "ways not strictly based on history or fact" phrase includes the meaning, "ways [that are] not strictly based on history or fact," with the "that are" implicit as a reduced relative clause. Ordinarily it's better to spell out rather than imply such a phrase, but the relevant sentence currently has one relative clause (i.e. "that portrays people, events, or places in imaginary ways...").

The m-dash you drafted was contextually incorrect. On the other hand, substituting a relative clause for the reduced relative clause creates the type of run-on sentence that I've been editing out whenever someone tries it in efforts to improve the lede. Yet another alternative: "Fiction is any creative work, chiefly any narrative work, with people, events, or places in imaginary ways that are not strictly based on history or fact." That's essentially no different from the prior iterations except two editors seem set on using the word "portray" for some reason. Whatever. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue here is the one part of the quote you missed: "imaginary ways not strictly based on history or fact". This is redundant on the face of it, because ways that are imaginary = ways that are not based on history or fact. That being said, it's meaningful in this case to go ahead and keep all the extra language, since defining "imaginariness" is so essential to fiction. The way I thought to show this -- to essentially show that the relative clause is intentional and not just a sloppy redundancy, was to set it off by the very versatile m-dash. Other suggestions? Wolfdog (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You beat me to the point. I had already drafted - nearly verbatim - what you just posted (but I couldn't upload it due to the editing conflict timing). The only reason I haven't deleted the "not strictly based on history or fact" verbiage is that doing so would likely stir some controversy. You probably know how feathers here get ruffled that way. Still, I'd applaud anyone who went ahead and deleted the needless verbiage. It's on you! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ANOTHER alternative: "Fiction is any creative work, chiefly any narrative work, portraying people, events, or places in imaginary ways that are not strictly based on history or fact." Still some redundancy there, but not egregiously so. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternative #2: "Fiction is any creative work, chiefly any narrative work, imaginatively portraying people, events, or places that are not strictly based on history or fact." Some concision; arguably less redundant. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha, none of these seems great, but I suppose your "ANOTHER alternative" is the best of the lot. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do the honors. Take the credit. Or the blame. Watch me run and plead ignorance. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, then ...[edit]

... but why only that article? We have tons of articles about places whose names begin with "New-" and as far as I can tell only that one seems to come in for this attention.

In fact, if this is a universal with such names, I would think that per MOS:LEADPRON we should just take the pronunciation out as I don't see how it would be counter- or nonintuitive. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to attend only to this article. I just happened to be looking up something about Newburg and saw that the pronunciation wasn't diaphonemic. Yeah... feel free to remove the whole thing. Wolfdog (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Don't delete tags without addressing them. It's not just a matter of conflating phonemically distinct vowels, but a claim of syllabicity. There is no consensus that it's /ˈlɛn.ɪs/ rather than /ˈlɛ.nɪs/; indeed, Ladefoged would argue for /ˈfɔːrt.ɪs/ and (if I remember correctly) /ˈliːn.ɪs/. We really don't need to introduce a mess like that. — kwami (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't trying to. Just trying to revert and add a source. Wolfdog (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my POV, I was addressing them. You've reverted, but isn't this what you actually intended then: (/ˈfɔːrtɪs/ and /ˈlnɪs, ˈlɛnɪs/;[1]? We can just remove syllable presumptions. Instead, you've reverted to a version with no sources at all. How is that an improvement? Wolfdog (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "lenis". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. n.d.

English language[edit]

Hi, i saw that you changed a sentence to: "While English is genealogically a Germanic language, its vocabulary has been hugely influenced by Old Norman French and Latin, as well as by Old Norse (a North Germanic language)." That sentence somehow sounds wrong. First, the "While English is genealogically a Germanic language" sounds like "Yes, it might be classified as a Germanic language, but somehow it isn't really one." This is the old story of neglecting the two facts that first the English grammar is completely Germanic, and second, that the most used words are almost 100% Germanic. Second, the sentence sounds wrong because of: "While English is genealogically a Germanic language, its vocabulary has been hugely influenced by ....... a North Germanic language." In order to sound correct this would at least have to be altered to: "While English is genealogically a West Germanic language, its vocabulary has been hugely influenced by ....... a North Germanic language. But as then the West Germanic languages would be mentioned twice in the introduction, you would have to change West Germanic to Germanic in the very first sentence. To avoid both of the misunderstandings your sentence evokes, it would have to be changed to: "English is genealogically a West Germanic language, with a vocabulary that has been hugely influenced by Old Norman French and Latin, as well as by Old Norse (a North Germanic language)." And actually, Scots as a language is disputed, and that's why it didn't appear in the introduction before your changes.ArchitectMan (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of all the points you raise. Linguistics and language itself are complex entities, and though I feel justified in my edits, which I deliberately worded with caution and care, I understand your points as well. Go ahead and make the slight changes you think will provide some clarity to other readers. As for Scots, I believe there's still value in mentioning its close relationship to English in the lead section, despite its disputed status; any solution to the wording of that? Wolfdog (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I'll make the changes myself. I reread your paragraph above, and the West/North Germanic distinction is indeed one that had escaped me. Thanks for checking in! Wolfdog (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mid-Atlantic American English[edit]

@Qwerfjkl, Lithopsian, and Rosguill: Hi all, not sure what your reviewing powers do, but a heads-up that the page Mid-Atlantic American English, a redirect page, has gotten reverted by a now-blocked user in the past and just today has been reverted twice by a new anon. Wolfdog (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reviewing powers don't do much here, but my admin powers let me protect the page, which I've gone ahead and done for 2 days. signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'd like to ask how my edit on English phonology "contradicted the entire comment" Great Mercian (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is to show that these are all syllabic consonants -- that no vowel is needed. Syllabic consonants also, by definition, mean that they could alternatively ALL be analyzed as using schwa. This isn't just specific to rhythm. Wolfdog (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I added that is as rhythm has no written vowels, I thought people would be confused. would it work better if I added it as a note instead? Great Mercian (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure! Wolfdog (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did it, but I'm not sure if I broke the page or not. Great Mercian (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Southern American English, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 12:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donald Albury: Thanks for the collegial tone. I've been here for 16 years though, haha, so I'm far from a "beginner". Page 135 of the Atlas of North American English says, and I quote, There is reason to believe that the Midland is becoming the default system of North American English. Several Southern cities on the Atlantic coast show brown symbols: Norfolk, Richmond, Greenville, and Charleston, suggesting that these cities are losing their original local dialects and are shifting to the regional Midland pattern. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies, then. I see way too many cases of material being added in front of citations that do not support such material, and have fallen into the habit of reverting such edits without digging into the cited source. Again, I apologize for reverting your edit. - Donald Albury 15:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Candle holder" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Candle holder and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5#Candle holder until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mid-Atlantic Accent and Its Base[edit]

 – Wolfdog (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vera Lynn's accent and RP[edit]

I don't really know whether you can help. I'm an average Russian reader of enwiki, and I would love to learn whether Vera Lynn's accent was totally standard (RP) or not. The point is that I'm a fan of her songs, and, accordingly, I'm used to repeating after her, but I'm not sure whether her accent is RP or not. As an average reader of English Wikipedia, I think that it is possible to ask about the accent of Vera Lynn, isn't it?

P. S. I was so disappointed that I should have noticed American timbre in great Kate's accent, and, to tell the truth. I was so upset, for great Kate is admirable. And, you know, I don't know how to deal with this situation. I have been learning English, using old movies. You know, you learn a language with pleasant things much faster. Could you recommend me a British classical actress whose features are very close to those of Great Kate, who was accustomed to portraying scatter-brained, smart, sportive, and independent women? Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voiced retroflex approximant in RP[edit]

I have been reading the scientific description of RP written by N. B. Tsybulya, a Russian phonetician, for several weeks. In accordance with her opinion, sometimes voiced alveolar approximants in RP can bit a bit retroflex, a bit close to the so-called retroflex approximant. It would appear that I'm mistaken in a way, for I forgot Tsybulya's textbook in my country house, in my dacha, but I'm in Smolensk right now, so I'm very sorry for being quite unable to give you a quote. Do you suppose the above viewpoint to be correct?

If Tsybulya is right, I'll edit the Wikipedian page "RP" in order to add the above judgement". Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of musicals filmed live on stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Human population and food availability, is not suitable as written to remain published. The article restores content that has unsuitable WP:SYNTHESIS of different opinions to argue a point, rather than surveying diverse perspectives on the topics. It needs more citations and better content from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sadads (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sadads: The article was recently already reviewed and I've been trying to de-orphan-ize it. The idea seems to be widely discussed, though it does not have one specific name in the literature (so I tried for a title specific but not too long). I'd love to hear more particular details of how you think it could be improved (a particular number of more scholarly articles, for example?). I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting the info isn't referenced. It does have some references (some, true, relating only to particular thinkers' opinions). Many stubs on WP seem to have a lot less sourcing than this one. Please advise, and thank you! Wolfdog (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think a title change is in order? A slightly more precise (but longer) title would be Human (over)population as an effect of food availability. Wolfdog (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original title is probably more appropriate -- however, the problem is that the whole thing (as written now) is set up as an argument meant to reinforce a very particular world view (that if you give humans to much food, then they will expand exponentially, and destroy the world like any other animal). Daniel Quinn, for example, who is the main source of authority in that section, is clearly not a widely respected academic or researcher on this topic for instance (at best he is treated as an ethicist and philosopher). The arguments made by Quinn and others is fairly well covered in Malthusianism -- however, most modern researchers of population growth have moved beyond that ideological approach to the data, to create a focus on what is actually happening (which is more of an anticipated population peak, and excess agricultural production being used for things, like making people obese and food systems displacing excess production into outputs like fuel, plastics and animal feed). Population is not a function of food availability -- but rather a complex system that needs to be captured as systems (such as in articles about food systems or the Green Revolution). The challenge with overpopulation and malthusianism is that they are ideological evidence for things like white nationalism and nativism, rather than established consensus positions within the academic community. Sadads (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally if you click through on the sources: you have a think tank known for pushing malthusianism, 2 novels, lectures by fringe academics, editorials in newspapers, etc. Its not anywhere close to our standard for WP:RS for social science topics, Sadads (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is all to say: I am all for documenting the catastrophic impacts of modern society on the natural environment, but these kinds of simplifying narratives are neither very accurate, very reflective of the past 30 years of food systems or population research, and arrive most frequently in very fraught political and ideological conversations, rather than in well studied, evidence based dialogue -- which is the standard for Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all that thoughtful feedback. I see your point now. I'm certainly no expert on population dynamics, but remembered seeing this information on WP as a very interesting hypothesis (perhaps an alternative one to the mainstream even). Obviously, many scientifically proposed ideas (well-studied ones, understudied ones, and even plain debunked ones) have their own articles on WP. The main authority certainly shouldn't be Quinn, who I agree was a thoughtful writer but certainly not a researcher or scholar. Really, the big scholarly research here is Hopfenberg and Pimentel's 2001 "Human population numbers as a function of food supply" and (presumably related) Hopfenberg's 2003 "Human carrying capacity is determined by food availability". Interestingly, both articles are cited by over 100 sources (according to Google Scholar), yet there doesn't seem to be much adding to these two men's conversations in the literature in the last 20 years (either agreeing or disagreeing). The two articles are mostly just quoted briefly in other sources. Disagreement/refutation would be one thing, and it would be quite useful to read about in-depth. But that's not exactly what the literature shows. So, at best, my interpretation is that population is indeed a function of food availability, but not exclusively -- as other more complex systems relationships are at play too. I'll keep seeking other sources on the topic. Wolfdog (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]