This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gilgamesh~enwiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry, for asking you this although I am not sure whether it's your work.
Is there really an official Academia transliteration of dhet, namely d with line below (the same as for dhalet)? I only know the transliteration z with dot below. It is used for the arabic equivalent of ط : ט with a dot: ظ transcribed ẓ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.82.215 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, ظ is a dental fricative, not an alveolar one, and is transcribed ẓ for Arabic out of convenience, not out of true description. Since Hebrew doesn't pronounce the emphatic consonants differently, dhalet and dhet are the same. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Hebrew does not pronounce them differently, but both letters are only used for transscriping non-Hebrew words.
Yes, I know they're only used for words of non-Hebrew origin. As for its commonness...I honestly don't know. o.o I'm not a native Hebrew speaker. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was an easy delete, but according to wikisource (the wikipedia article about wikisource, since I wanted a 1 minute summary of all its policies and guidelines)--and lo and behold, it says...
Wikisource is an online library of free contenttextual sources, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Its aims are to harbour all forms of free text, in many languages. It also provides translation efforts to this end.
The last sentence is pretty confusing to me, and now I regret my post to jkb's talkpage. I'm confused and I know that discussion will never exist because wikisource has a deletion discussion about once per month, so its not going to get noticed, will just be deleted without any "trial or deliberation" and I already backed his decision, but now I feel its a big mistake.
Exactly what are you talking about? I gave the list maybe one or two edits. They were big edits, but I actually whipped up a quick Java program to generate all the additional readings, and pasted the results to the edit. I'm not heavily involved in that page. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I happened to come across your answer to the subject I'd raised on the Hebrew phonology article talk page. Then I came across your userpage, and found you quite interesting. So, mind adding me to your MSNM, if you have one? Mine's seto1@walla.co.il. Thanks =3 Siúnrá (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Though it's common to use "." between every syllable break, I believe it is permissible to use it only where a syllable break would otherwise not be obvious. Also, if the following syllable is stressed primarily or secondarily, you don't use the period, but instead a stress mark, e.g. [uˈi] or [uˌi]. Use [u.i] if [i] isn't stressed. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless you would categorize all countries to "homophobia" or "homofilia" categories, I see no reason to make a single country an exception. Renata (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
And I guess with exception of 7 countries that recognize same-sex marriage, everybody else would end up in "homophobia" category. Or what would be the threshold? Renata (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think that deeply. I was thinking of countries where it is considered particularly problematic—you know, where gay people live under particularly great misery and/or fear or death. But I suppose you're right that a more concretely objective threshold may be necessary. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you just being bold here, or was there a prior discussion somewhere about classifying diamond mines as volcanoes? I can't see any definition of "volcano" on-wiki or off that would include Jagersfontein Mine, the Big Hole, or others you've recently tagged. These are manually-excavated holes, not areas where magma has been expelled. --DeLarge (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I wasn't being bold. You see, these particular mines are mostly kimberlitepipes, which are a type of volcanic pipe, which are a type of diatreme, which are a type of volcano. They are very old volcanoes, often a billion years old or older with no modern tendency to erupt. Please read up on the subjects. I didn't include every diamond mine, because some diamond mines are from ancient alluvial (river) deposits—I only included the mines that were specifically mentioned to have mined from a diatreme. In fact, the majority of naturally-occurring diamonds on earth come from diatremes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of how diamonds are formed and delivered to the surface, thanks. My original point remains; that I don't see any on- or off-wiki definition of "volcano" that includes the diamond mines. Prehistoric volcanic activity ≠ volcano. If you want to categorize these mines as diatremes within the larger volcano category that's fine, but categorizing the mines themselves as volcanoes—classifying Jagersfontein Mine as the same as Prince Edward Islands—seems very misleading to me, and not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's material on the subject. I'm going to post at WP:WikiProject Volcanoes for wider input. Scratch that, someone else already has. --DeLarge (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
On a related not, what's with slapping "Volcanoes of the Lake District" on any hill in the area composed of volcanic material? This is just daft. None of these are volcanoes. Yes, the area was an Ordovician island arc and back arc terrane, but the actual volcanic edifices are long gone by now. What you see remaining are glaciated plugs and flows that bear very little relationship to the original volcanic architecture. These are not volcanoes. Vast tracts of Quebec and Ontario are composed of bimodal, arc/back-arc volcanic rocks, so are we going to see Kidd Creek mine (where the terrain is flat and swampy, believe me) classed as a "Volcano of Northern Ontario"? Of course not. Unless you can come up with some pretty robust references for this, in fairly short order, I'll be putting the whole category, and probably its parent categories, up for deletion at CfD. Pyrope13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes. It doesn't matter how old a volcanic remnant is or how ground into the crust it is. And yes, we even discussed kimberlite mines and dike swarms. They go in, because they are still volcanoes, no matter how old and extinct. Please take the discussion there. By the way, Kidd Mineis now categorized as a Volcano of Ontario. It's been for several days, at least. It was part of the discussion. So was the Mackenzie Dike Swarm. It's all volcanism and it goes in. We discussed even changing the category names from "Volcanoes of" to "Volcanism of", but "volcanoes" stuck because even if many lay people might not associate them with volcanoes, they are still technically volcanic remnants. A volcano is a volcano, whether it erupted yesterday or two billion years ago. It doesn't matter whether it's a nice cone shape, or if it's been twisted and contorted by tectonic and sedimentary forces and even completely converted to pancake-flat serpentine-like metamorphic rock like with greenstone belts. It doesn't matter. For volcanology studies, it's still important to document and categorize these remnants in a manner that makes them easy to find. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Life is far too short to wade through a huge argument like that. Just give me the condensed version of your position. My problem is that you are confusing the terms "volcano" and "volcanic". The dictionary definition, and the widely understood public understanding of the term, is that a volcano is "a mountain or hill, typically conical, having a crater or vent through which lava, rock fragments, hot vapor, and gas are or have been erupted from the earth's crust." (New Oxford Dictionary) It is a noun, an object, a thing. Birker Fell is not a volcano. It is composed of volcanic rocks. This is a very different thing! We are a general interest encyclopedia not a resource for volcanological studies. If you include a hill in a category called "Volcanos of..." a lay person is going to think that that particular object was itself a volcano. The same goes for all of the other fells of the Lake District. If you want to create a category called "Volcanic rocks of the Lake District" then Birker might go into that. Alternatively, if you want to include the whole Lake District in a category "Volcanoes of England" then I wouldn't have a problem. But what you have done is nuts. An individual kimberlite pipe might be classed as a volcano, sure, but a hill formed from the eroded flows of some other volcanic edifice is not a volcano. Similarly Kidd Creek might be included in a category "Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits of Ontario", it is certainly of volcanic origin, but it isn't a volcano. And you are wrong to include tectonised and metamorphosed materials in your argument. Once they stop being "a mountain or hill, typically conical, having a crater or vent through which lava, rock fragments, hot vapor, and gas are or have been erupted from the earth's crust." they stop being a volcano and are simply volcanic. Your category is misleading and extremely poorly applied. Pyrope16:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Pyrop, your dictionary definiton is false. Sorry. An eroded volcano would likely not have a crater and not a volcanoes are mountains. Calderas and maars are not mountains and volcanoes do exist throughout Eastern Canada. Examples include Sturgeon Lake Caldera and Mount Pleasant Caldera, and ancient volcanoes like Sturgeon are likely not very noticible because of heavy erosion. What remains of this large caldera is lava domes, lava, pyroclastic flows etc. However, I am not familiar with any volcanoes around Kidd Mine. Those volcanic deposits were formed from hydrothermal vents during the Precambrian, not magmatic volcanoes as far as I'm aware of. Black Tusk (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you're busy changing the "Volcanoes of <period>" categories to volcanism ones. I have no objection to moving them, and I admire your industriousness, but I think the way you moved them (through cut and paste moves) leaves us with a problem. It loses their edit history, which we need to retain to comply with the GFDL. I'll list them at the cut and paste move repair holding pen for admin attention. In the meantime, I'd suggest not editing the new or old ones further (except perhaps to remove the {{empty}} tag), so that the repair job is kept as simple as possible. -- Avenue (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not that simple. There is no "Move" button for categories. If there was, I would have done that in the first place. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If you check WP:REPAIR, you'll see that there's a technical limitation that categories cannot be moved. The only option left is to the cut-and-paste. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's no "Move" button for categories, but didn't you wonder why? The usual approach is to suggest the move at WP:CFD. I think this move is uncontroversial, so I am suggesting a simple repair rather than reversal/listing at CFD. -- Avenue (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight... I have to go through a bureaucratic request process for each and every category? I have a great deal of categories to move (no, I can't compile a great big list right now), and a lot of new ones to create. I work in bursts. If I have to constantly interrupt my work, it's going to feel like stop-and-go editing and it's going to take forever and I might burn out. I already almost quit over this daunting task ahead of me before it began. But I created most of these categories to begin with. If I can take care of them, then I should. But it helps to keep up a steady pace. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've felt overwhelmed by this. I don't think it needs to be a demanding process, although it may require some patience - discussions run for a week, and perhaps a few days backlog for attention. You can suggest several related moves in the same request. -- Avenue (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but meanwhile I won't necessarily stop recategorizing articles, even if the equivilent categories don't exist just yet. If this kind of notification is important, I'll leave that detail to you. I need to focus on this the best that I can. I'll try to make it simpler—I'll try to link the categories in the edit descriptions and they'll appear neatly in my user contributions list. As of this writing, Category:Volcanoes by geochronology and all its subcategories are currently affected by the cut-and-paste I already did. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Routine recategorising after a CFD decision is usually handled by a bot, so I don't think you'll need to do all this manually. But you can if you really want to. -- Avenue (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (copied from my talk page) If you check WP:REPAIR, you'll see that there's a technical limitation that categories cannot be moved. The only option left is to the cut-and-paste. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, you're probably right that that's not the best place to ask for help. I think admins can rename categories, but the people at WP:REPAIR are less likely to be comfortable doing this. Somewhere at CFD is probably better. I'll ask about the best approach. -- Avenue (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for handling the category business. When the moving is complete, those geochronological volcanism categories that have Category:Extinct volcanoes will have to be switched to Category:Extinct volcanism. (Extinct volcanoes is a subcategory is Extinct volcanism.) I can do that—I just need to know when to do it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it will take as least a week. That's assuming it gathers a consensus at CFD, of course. Thanks for holding off on further changes for now. -- Avenue (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop tagging inappropriate categories
Do not continue to tag Jamaican singers as homophobic. The topic has been more than extensively covered in their talk pages and appropriate articles (and far overblown). Are you going to tag every person on Wikipedia with strict religious morals as homophobic? No - do not stereotype Jamaican musicians. smooth0707 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
We've had another discussion, at Category talk:Homophobia. Since the Stop Murder Music campaign, these artists have become visibly highlighted for their homophobic lyrics, including those lyrics which call for the killing of LGBT people. And we've come to a fairly good consensus at Category:Homophobia over what can be categorized as such as. And yes, it includes many religious people who use religious excuses to justify this. And yes, it even includes Leviticus 18 as it's one of the most widely invoked justifications for homophobia. Category:Homophobia has a FAQ in the works of what constitutes homophobia, based on the consensus principles of two independent sources—the European Union and the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
One thing that was reviewed extensively in the discussion, is that virtually no one applicable as homophobic or associated with homophobic violence wants to be thought of as such. Even the Ku Klux Klan denies being racist or homophobic. Homophobia is measured not only in ones words and works, but also in ones effects and visibility. Anita Bryant may claim she's not homophobic (at least anymore), but she's still heavily associated with homophobia. There are some major world religious leaders and politicians in the category as well. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't care for things like revert wars. I strongly suggest you discuss the topic in Category talk:Homophobia where we've been discussing this in depth for quite some time. A consensus decision can deal with this. I'm trying to edit in good faith of what I understand to be the consensus rules-of-thumb formed there. Care to join the discussion? - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait, a "consensus" was reached over at Category:Homophobia by members of WP:LGBT? Wow, big surpise there {sarcasm}. Not one of these artists exhibits what I deem an "irrational fear," that is the point you seem to be missing. Quite rational IMO. I can't speak to the other bios b/c I am not involved in editing them. smooth0707 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reservations about your tone. We discussed the effects of homophobia, and came to a consensus that it doesn't have to be irrational to be homophobic in association, especially when the effects can be so destructive to rights and dignity of LGBT people. And I don't know if any of us were members of WP:LGBT or not. I'm not a member of it. We were discussing the applicability of the category. Please involve yourself in the discussion and the consensus process there, and without assailing the backgrounds and associations of the other editors and without dismissing the credentials of the category out of hand. I do concede that, as a gay man, I cannot reach a full POV on the issue by myself, which is part of why we have the Wikipedia consensus process. It's better to contrast different editors together than to approach everything alone. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
