Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics

(moved here from User talk:Beland)

Hi, I can see that you've moved the articles Æ (to "letter ae") and Ø (to "O with slash") (among others, but not Å). Has there been any discussion of this anywhere? You cite WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS, but from what I can read, it recommends the redirect situation ("redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters") that was present before your moves. In the case of Æ, I don't think the term "letter ae" is used anywhere else than the Unicode description. Do you want to elaborate a bit? I would have thought this should be discussed at Wikiproject Linguistics before implementation. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 21:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have reverted both bold moves. Please open a move discussion if you would still like these pages to be moved. You did not perform necessary post-move cleanup by fixing the redlinked hatnote at Ø. I will also note that Æ has been through an RM before; you may find inspiration for other alternative titles there. Toadspike [Talk] 00:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Beland, I see you have done a rather large number of these moves in quick succession. They appear to be based on a misinterpretation of TSC. Please stop performing similar moves and undo all of them, as they are controversial. Toadspike [Talk] 00:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

There's no particular rule requiring discussion before moving articles if the move hasn't been discussed before. If there had been incoming redirects at the move destinations, I would have looked for previous discussions, but there weren't. I couldn't find any move discussion for Ø; digging into archived discussions, it appears a move to AE ligature was suggested two decades ago, before the current title policies were written and before Wikipedia even used Unicode. I was going to move Å to A with overring, but since there is now an objection to this type of move, I'll pause for the suggested discussion here on the WikiProject talk page. Thanks for pointing out the broken link, BTW; it never occurred to me that a page move could cause a broken link if a redirect was left behind. I'll check for that if I end up doing any future moves.

It's true, WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS says to use redirects for characters that can't be typed on a standard keyboard if those special characters are part of the most appropriate title. I'm going through systematically and making sure that either those redirects exist or that articles are renamed to more appropriate titles. WP:ENGLISHTITLE says that titles should reflect the common English names of our subjects. The naturalness criterion at Wikipedia:Article titles also seems relevant; if a title can't be typed on a standard keyboard, that doesn't seem like a natural way to search for or link to an article (though we may find evidence to the contrary). I question whether "Ø" and "Å" are the most common English names for those letters. Looking at the Unicode standard, which has widely used names for every letter in English, for U+00D8, it doesn't use the name "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Ø"; the standard calls it "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE". This to me reinforces the notion that "Ø" is not the English name for this letter. most people would say this letter isn't the English alphabet, even though it's retained in some imported words.

One thing that made me pretty comfortable making these page moves is that most of the articles in Category:Latin-script letters use English words as titles rather than the Unicode characters for those letters, for example: Thorn (letter), Hwair, and Turned A. H with stroke seems to be directly parallel to O with stroke. WP:CONSISTENT tells us that we should either use English words or Unicode characters for letter titles, but not have a mix of the two. If there is consensus for Unicode characters, that's fine, but English words seem to be somewhat better for navigation. It's not possible to make the redirects required by WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS for many letters. For ligatures there's usually a disambiguation page, which isn't so bad for cases like AE. For Latin letters with diacritics, there's always going to be a letter article in the way. So for example to get to Å, you need to go to A and either notice that Å is in the infobox, or click through to A (disambiguation) then Å (disambiguation) and finally to Å. -- Beland (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Doing bold stuff is fine, but you should be ready for a bold response. I don't think the Unicode descriptions are enough to argue that they are common in English sources, so that more has to be established on a per-article basis. That makes them a bit different from thorn (a specifically English letter for which there are many English sources). Ø and Å are not treated as "letters with diacritics" in the languages that use them (which also is the case for Æ, but other languages use it as a genuine ligature), so the "with overring/slash"-title seems misleading from that perspective. I'm not sure which redirects you say are impossible to make - A with overring, O with slash works, and you say the AE disambiguation page isn't so bad. But generally, I don't think one simple way to title letter articles can be established, so it has to be discussed on a per-article basis. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Sure, I'm happy for the bold response!

WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS envisions e.g. a redirect to Å from an ASCII version with diacritics removed. That would be A, but it is impossible to make a direct redirect from there because it is the article for the Latin letter A. I'm just a bit worried about readers looking for Å, typing A, and getting lost on the way from one to the other. I suppose readers who don't know what title we've chosen will have that experience anyway. But it would be easier on the second visit if readers knew they could type "A with ring" or whatever they vaguely remember and get to the right place. Or they learn this naming pattern from other letters. Given our guidelines, perhaps these concerns are neither here nor there, and we should just look to source evidence.

In that spirit, what sources do you have that show "H with slash" should be treated differently than "O with slash", which would outweigh Unicode treating them the same and also outweigh WP:CONSISTENT? -- Beland (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Allan et al. 2000 Danish, an Essential Grammar simply refers to Æ, Ø and Å, at most in the formulation "the letter(s) X" (p. 185) - never uses formulations like "with overring/stroke" or ligature. In this review of a dictionary (p. 334), æ and ø are also just referred to with the character. This is in line with my experience reading about is (as far as I remember). It comes off to me as very odd to refer to those with the "X with Y" description - and if the articles were so titled, people would be misled to think they should refer to them like that. I'm not saying they should be treated different from "H with slash" as such (but that one doesn't exist so it shouldn't have a title, I guess), but whatever name they're moved to, should be a term actually used in sources where people might (have) read about it (in line with WP:COMMONNAME).

I don't think moving to "X with Y" is going to change whether people get lost when looking at article X; as you say, the derived character cannot take the place of what it's based on. Whether an "X with Y" page redirects to the unicode title or opposite doesn't change that. And as pointed out below, some of the characters have multiple possible descriptions, and different sources use different names. For instance, "letter tone two" for Ƨ seems odd given its use in the Metelko alphabet where tone is not relevant. "Turned m" isn't a great description of what the capital form looks like. Using the character as the title seems the most consistent (and will probably also be in line with WP:COMMONNAME), and many people are smart enough to search by copying (arriving from search engines will also look more relevant with the character as the title, I'd say). The gist of WP:CONSISTENT also seems to be that consensus can trump consistency. Using the character in the title is also more consistent with the many articles about people with those characters in their names (definitely the case for ÆØÅ; the IPA characters are a bit different since the sound they denote will have a separate article - also a reason why it doesn't make sense to compare "Ə" with "schwa", since we don't know which are used to refer to the vowel or to the character).

I think the Unicode descriptions you mention are written specifically to avoid the use of Unicode characters - a practice we don't need to copy. Better sources are needed to establish how the letters are referred to. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 22:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Seconding Replayful – the possible alternative names are many and varied, the situation for each letter is complex and different. "There's no particular rule requiring discussion before moving articles if the move hasn't been discussed before." – Yes, for uncontroversial moves. It doesn't require a previous RM to see that something could be controversial, but moving pages that have been through one, or have been boldly moved several times, is obviously controversial. Toadspike [Talk] 10:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Now that the discussion has been moved here, I would like to point out some other characters relevant for linguistics that were moved, such as IPA characters (I put them first here):

• Ə
• Ʊ - talkpage has a discussion of the term "Latin upsilon"
• Ɯ
• Ɵ
• Ɪ
• ⱺ (Swedish phonetic symbol)
• Ꞩ, Ꞡ, Ꞧ, Ꞥ (used in former Latvian orthograpy)
• Ƨ, Ƅ, Ƽ - "tone letters"
• Others: Ʋ, Ỽ, Ȼ

I don't think the IPA symbol pages work well at another title than the symbol (at least the first 4).

(And sorry for being nitpicky, but "untypeable letters" is a somewhat misleading title. They are perfectly typeable on keyboards designed for it, and by changing your keyboard layout, you can also get to type Æ, Ø, Å. The others here, like the IPA symbols, probably need plugins or more complex though.) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 09:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I mean "untypeable" in the sense of WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS - not able to be entered on standard keyboards, by which it seems to mean ANSI US QWERTY give or take a £. English Wikipedia is designed for English speakers with English keyboard layouts, not Swedish, etc. Most people have no idea how to change that, and wouldn't and shouldn't do so for a one-off web query. This makes non-ASCII characters de facto untypeable for many readers in our core audience.

What sources would you point to show that general English sources would use the symbols rather than names with words for these characters? Google Books Ngrams shows "schwa" surpassed "Ə" in frequency around 1970, and is currently much more common.

I was going to check the fourth symbol against "theta", but it turns out to be a barred "O". Visual confusion like that seems like a good reason to prefer English words as titles. -- Beland (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

"letter ae" and "O with slash" can just be useful redirects, but I absolutely do not support moving letters/symbols to descriptions like these.★Trekker (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Well, "barred o" or "o with stroke" are very confusing as they could very well be ø or ɵ. For example Robert Bringhurst’s The Elements of Typographic Style uses "barred o" for ø but Unicode uses "o with slash" for that letter, the IPA handbook uses "slashed o". Both Unicode and the IPA handbook use "barred o" for ɵ, but Unicode uses the name "o with middle tilde" for the capital Ɵ. This is not to say articles should or shouldn’t be renamed, just that it’s not straightforward and that there are pros and cons either way. --Moyogo/ (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Would y'all then support moving articles in Category:Latin-script letters that previously had English-word titles to Unicode character titles, to follow WP:CONSISTENT? -- Beland (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I wouldn't mind more articles having a title just consisting of a character, but it needs to be taken into account whether the article is written from the perspective of the character or something else (handwriting variation, orthography-specific terms, probably others) - so it's not just a question of moving, but possible rewriting. My opinion is that the ones I listed above could be moved back, but I won't wouldn't say it can be done for all, as it depends on why it was moved to its current position. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 13:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I probably would yes.★Trekker (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

See also Talk:Heng (letter)#Requested move 16 May 2026. Викидим (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello all! I've been working on the Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages for about two years now and as I close in on bringing it to featured list candidacy (pressing forward on my goal of getting Indo-European sound laws to Good Topic status), I want to ask other editors what they think the Indo-European sound laws page's purpose is. It's currently just a massive, mostly uncited set of tables and the useful content seems overall better suited for a page like Proto-Indo-European phonology. I've been expanding the glossary with the idea that it will be used to define terms for the lay audience and find use as an anchoring tool for links either before a page is made or because a full page may not be warranted (e.g., Kuiper's law), so it would be redundant to put that information on the "Indo-European sound laws" page. I also don't think the glossary contents should be migrated to the article page; I think the glossary/list format is appropriate for the content.

My two cents on the issue is that the page doesn't really have a purpose. Given the size of the page and the relative traffic (3,186 pageviews this month), I think it's best being stripped for its best parts to be merged with Proto-Indo-European phonology and used as a redirect to the glossary. Open to other ideas though; some more experienced editors or scholars might have a better idea to do with the page. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think the purpose of the page is well served by your commendable project. Indo-European sound laws should be deleted. The only work with such a title is, as far as I know, Neville Collinge's the Laws of Indo-European which does much the same as your Glossary. The only other meaning of the term I could imagine is one of Pre-Indo-European sound laws or sound laws within PIE. There is such a section in the aforementioned article, but it can definitely be merged into PIE phonology, unless that article were to expand to an unreasonable size. I'll mention that the phonology article is woefully inadequate. Aspets (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the kind words. There are a few other works that cover the topic – Lubotsky's Sound Law and Analogy (R. S. P. Beekes's Festschrift) and Probert's Laws and Rules in Indo‐European come to mind (both cited in the glossary) – but they do not cover it as a cohesive whole, rather different authors typically tackle one or two laws at a time. For the other meaning, I don't think that it is captured by that title (maybe "Pre-Proto-Indo-European sound laws" or "Proto-Indo-European sound laws" would work), but even if it were, this is still captured by the glossary at this point.

Yes, the phonology article is in poor shape; frankly, most Proto-Indo-European articles are in pretty rough shape, which is part of the reason I have the Dura Lex project. Looking at it, I'm uncertain what I would even want to keep from there. My initial thought was maybe the tables, but they're completely uncited and don't capture the very scope most sound laws capture: narrow circumstances where changes occur (e.g., Cowgill's law of Greek). Curious if you think there's much worth salvaging. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Indo-European sound laws could be renamed to Indo-European sound correspondances with only the tables kept. But as you mention, they would be a lot of work to reference completely (but it's probably possible, the information exists in handbooks). Of course, "[a] fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment". Aspets (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Possibly, but Indo-European sound laws also seems like something that could be on Wiktionary (in the appendix namespace)? But I agree a lot with your earlier comment. I'd say that Indo-European sound laws has been successfully couped by the glossary, and might as well redirect there, unless someone really likes the idea of sourcing the table. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not terribly attached to the tables to be honest, though I ran a few PIE terms blind through the table and they mostly work. Some of it doesn't make much sense though, like why are the consonants measured to Old Irish and modern English, but the vowels map to Proto-Celtic and Old English, respectively? Also not distinguishing the Tocharian languages is not great either. I may keep the tables somewhere in the draftspace for a little while to work on them for Wiktionary or maybe the phonology page, since someone worked hard on them and they mostly work, but they are going to need some restructuring. If no one objects to the move within a week of my original post (i.e., by the 2 Feb), I'm just going to be bold and go ahead with the change up: move tables to a user/draftspace (probably with Aspets's "sound correspondences" title) and then redirect the page to the glossary. All links headed to the page can remain per WP:NOTBROKEN so the transition should be fairly easy. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm fine with the move if you also link the draft here, so I could source some of the material. Aspets (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yep, I was planning to. I appreciate the willingness to help out. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

NP. Aspets (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've taken care of this now. I've adopted your naming recommendation and moved the tables (and most of the text) to User:ThaesOfereode/Indo-European sound correspondences. If you forget the name for whatever reason, it can be access through my to-do list under "Miscellaneous". Feel free to let me know if there's anything I missed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Replayful: You may be interested in the above as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, thank you. Aspets (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Is it possible I can be of any help? Just today, coincidentally before knowing this thread existed or that a move had even occured while I was viewing the page, I decided to adopt the table to my own private version where I've added a few extra languages such as Proto-Italic, Proto-Brythonic, Welsh, Proto-Celtic consonants, Proto-Germanic, Norse, Icelandic, Old English consonants, Proto-Hellenic, Modern Greek, and planning more. AlphabetRevivalist (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Absolutely! Feel free to add reliably sourced material to the new draft page here. If the page becomes well-sourced enough, I will move it to the mainspace under the new title. I'm happy to hear other editor's opinions, but I think we should plan to make the table somewhat more even than it was before; that is, using all proto-languages (using the neo-traditional model) rather than mixing Modern Greek, Proto-Italic, and Old Norse. I think that will make it more legible/accessible to the lay reader. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not entirely sure how to source them other than Wiktionary examples, I'm very new at this game.

Do you propose including only proto-languages, without including attested languages? My version includes everything on the table before (or rather it will, it's still incomplete and I probably won't work on the rest today as I've been working on it all day already) in addition to the languages I listed above. AlphabetRevivalist (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, my version is entirely in IPA, so a bit less cluttered and more consistent with sounds between languages than the original which primarily uses orthography and Romanizations. AlphabetRevivalist (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I recommend you read WP:V which is sorta required reading for editing Wikipedia. The reason we're moving the tables off of the "main space" is because they're unsourced. If we can find sources, then we can put it back up. You can help, but Wikipedia does not allow any original research (also good reading), so you'll have to find something which backs your "claims" up. Aspets (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

This was a super dumb change. Users and readers alike have been consulting those tables for 20 years. If the concern was that the content was unsourced, the appropriate fix was to add sources. And why was this done without even a WT:AFD? --Victar (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can understand your frustration. For what it's worth, development of the original page (with sources) is underway here, if you'd like to contribute. We believe the tables may be useful, either here or on Wiktionary, in a page dedicated to sound correspondences rather than sound laws, provided that they can be sourced. The page was functionally unsourced, lacked real clarity in the topic at hand, and may be better suited for consultation on Wiktionary rather than as a distinct Wikipedia article. We are happy to get your input on the linked draft's talk page. As for AfD, I suppose you can consider the move something of a bold edit, but there was, I believe, reasonable consensus here. I didn't think to take it to AfD because it wasn't really a deletion per se; in any event, it seemed better to get input from editors who would be familiar with sound laws rather than non-specialized editors who would see several sources with the general topic of "sound laws" and conclude that the page should remain as is. Sound laws are not coterminous with sound correspondences. There was agreement that the tables might be worth something in the long term, which is why we maintained the data therein. I understand you may have objections and I'm happy to discuss them here or at the draft's talk page in a respectful manner. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

In the interest of ecumenism, would it be better if we simply moved that page to say sound correspondences and redirected the laws page to the glossary (with a hatnote about the redirection on the glossary). Would that be sufficient to address your concerns? ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

In milling this over a bit, I think this might be the right approach. @Aspets, Replayful, and AlphabetRevivalist: thoughts? ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I definitely agree that it should be titled "Sound Correspondences" rather than "Sound Laws". AlphabetRevivalist (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I agree. In retrospect, I wish I had considered this option, but hindsight is 20/20, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Anything is fine by me, I don't have too strong opinions about anything //Replayful (talk | contribs) 01:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it'd be better to keep it off the main space, since it is sorely lacking in sources. Ideally we would bring it back piece-meal, as each language column gets sourced. For the material which cannot be sourced, I agree that wiktionary could be a resting place for it (I'm thinking of medial stages between two well-documented or reconstructed stages). Aspets (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I disagree with bringing it back piecemeal. We need that table somewhere. It can be populated with sources as we go. I honestly don't care where it lives but the table was of immense usefulness. I'm going to paste what I sent @ThaesOfereode below:

The loss of the sound law table is tremendous. It was incredibly useful for research, at least for an at-a-glance conspectus of correspondences. I disagree deeply and absolutely with the redirect to the glossary which is by no means useful to navigate. Even if the table was largely unsourced, it was for the most part highly accurate. The difficulty with citing all the changes in the table is precisely proportional to the difficulty an individual must now undergo in order to find the sound correspondences in the very disparate literature. It served a great purpose and its loss is an unthinkable injustice. Consider that the helpful links to the old page here are now broken and no longer answer the question of where to find a comprehensive chart of sound correspondences. This is not the only example. These tables were used by a large amount of people, and for good reason. I implore you to reconsider the decision to redirect for the time being. (Or at least move the old tables elsewhere) Arxandr (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

We have a page for the near-close near-back unrounded vowel [ɯ̽], which has low visibility due to its exclusion from our {{IPA vowels }} chart. A handful of pages link to it, but it largely flies under the radar: (pageview stats, with some others for comparison)

I think we should do one of two things with it, and I'd like to know thoughts on which option others find preferable.

• Option 1: we add it to the vowel chart as is shown in {{IPA vowels/sandbox }}, adjacent to its rounded counterpart
• Option 2: we merge it into a section of its close back counterpart [ɯ ]; this would be similar to the near-close centrals [ɪ̈ ] & [ʊ̈ ] residing in sections of their close central counterparts and the near-open backs [ɑ̝ ] & [ɒ̝ ] in sections of their open back counterparts, and none of which we list in the chart

From my perspective, both options have caveats:

• Option 1 feels it may be giving undue weight, as the occurrence listing currently only has 7 languages; though [ɤ̞ ], which we do have in the chart, has the same amount in its occurrence table, and of course [ɶ ] has less than half of those. However, despite their low occurrences, the pageview stats I linked above show they still get far more visibility than [ɯ̽] does.
• The other examples I gave in option 2 are differing from their main pages in height alone, while [ɯ̽] is differing from [ɯ] in both height and backness. That being said, the difference between [ɯ̽] and [ɯ̞] is a fine line, as explained on the current page, and the sections for [ɑ̝] & [ɒ̝] also have mid-centralized [ɑ̽] & [ɒ̽] occurrences listed in them, so making the distinction of both height and backness may be negligible.

~ oklopfer (💬) 06:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Better IMO to add it as a section to ʊ, which is often undefined for rounding and includes this vowel. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Handbook pp. 169-170 & 180-181 defines [ʊ ] as rounded so I am hesitant about flattening it to include all three protruded, compressed, and unrounded ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

They do, but it's commonly used with agnostic or ambiguous rounding regardless. I think that's mentioned in Ladefoged's stuff, but I couldn't tell you where. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'll try looking around for it tomorrow (anecdotally I know what you're saying is true). If I can find a cite and that's the decision from this discussion, I suggest we adjust the template chart to use {{IPA vowels/vowelsingle }} instead of {{IPA vowels/vowelpair }} for the vowel; that's approximately how it appears on the actual chart anyway ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Kwamikagami perhaps this is the passage you were thinking of?

[u] and [ʊ] are unrounded, [ʊ] often being pronounced with spread lips.

—Handbook, p. 43; Ladefoged's American English Illustration of the IPA

~ oklopfer (💬) 01:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's specifically for English, and we wouldn't want to say that in general [u] may be unrounded! No, I've come across other comments that the IPA doesn't make a rounding distinction here, because languages don't have a contrast, so ʊ may be used for either, and often may be ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Keep digging then, I will... ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've found a few other examples, but they are all language-specific. Most other pieces talking about ambiguity of [ʊ] are about compressed vs protruded, not rounded vs unrounded. If anyone has an idea where to look, it would be much appreciated.

Or perhaps it would just be easier to merge to [ɯ], where rounding ambiguity need not be taken into account. There is already apparent overlap in the occurrence tables with the former and [ɯ̽]. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

That might work better. The IPA does [currently at least] define it as a rounded vowel. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just link it from [ʊ] in "see also". Aspets (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Linking it at the bottom of an already long page is going to leave us in the exact same place we are now. We should either give it more predominant visibility in the chart template, or merge it to a section of a closely related vowel. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

No, there's nothing which compels us to do so. Merging is only allowed if the vowel belongs to the same topic. The IPA vowel chart on wikipedia is already too cluttered compared to reliable sources, and this very rare vowel definitely does not belong on the template. Aspets (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Merging is only allowed if the vowel belongs to the same topic.

I'm not really sure what this means. Both [ɯ ] and [ʊ ] can be argued to be relevant to the "same topic" as [ɯ̽ ], or on the contrary [ɪ̈ ] [ʏ̈ ] [ʊ̈ ] [ɑ̝ ] [ɒ̝ ] can all be argued to be not the "same topic" of the pages they are currently sections on.

The IPA vowel chart on wikipedia is already too cluttered compared to reliable sources, and this very rare vowel definitely does not belong on the template.

As I pointed out, [ɤ̞ ] is listed in the chart, and is arguably even rarer, as it is mentioned for less dialects (though the same number of languages, wherever we draw that line). Why include it and not [ɯ̽ ]? If the argument is along the lines of "it keeps the chart balanced", then adding the latter would only maintain that balance: {{IPA vowels/sandbox }}

Again, it is the only vowel with an independent page that is not listed in the chart. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I definitely think it should be merged somewhere. I guess I don't really care where, as long as it's cross-ref'd. I think ʊ makes the most sense. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well, I think [ɤ̞] could definitely be removed.

Since all information must be sourced, we do not decide on our own as Wikpedians if we merge articles or not. It will depend on how the topic is handled by reliable sources. The two options you gave above seem not to be based on any treatment of the vowel by an authority, but I'd be happy to read any source you're able to find about the topic. I don't really have the time to look for one myself, but if we are to treat these vowels (and regarding on what pages) then there better be some. Cheers. Aspets (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think you have a misunderstanding of the merging process. See WP:MERGE, WP:PMG, and WP:PAM; we absolutely decide on our own as Wikipedians if we merge articles or not — who else would?

And again, we already treat the near-close central vowels and the near-open back vowels this way, rather arbitrarily. [ɪ̈ʊ̈] are often treated as reflexes or realizations of [ɪʊ], but that is not where we have them listed. Is your suggestion that we WP:SPLIT these, creating even more hidden-from-view vowel pages?

Finally, both merge options are in fact treated as related by reliable sources; this is clearly provided on the current page, where [ɯ̽] is most often a realization of /ʊ/ or /ɯ/. Asking for evidence which already exists and is already provided, and instead turning a blind eye, is not an argument. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well, I guess this brings us to an interesting dilemma: are the articles about phones or phonemes (or phonetic realisations of phonemes?)?

I'm sorry if I've come across as agressive or rude, that certainly wasn't my intention. But I do find my words to not have been terribly well chosen and phrased, reading them through again. Aspets (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

They can't be about phonemes, because those are defined by the language. There is no cross-linguistic /ʊ/. Basically, we cover phones that have dedicated IPA letters, plus some others we find notable; the IPA assigns letters to phones that are phonemically distinct in [some undefined number of] languages, again with exceptions. — kwami (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apps — I'd appreciate input from editors here given the applied linguistics angle.

BoldVoice is an AI-powered pronunciation and accent coaching app for non-native English speakers. I work at the company (WP:COI disclosed), so I'm asking here rather than creating the article.

Key sources:

• Wired : "AI and the End of Accents" (Oct 2025)
• Inc. : "This Startup Is Putting an Accent Coach in Your Pocket" (Jan 2026)
• TechCrunch : In-depth profile (Jul 2021)
• Hawaii TESOL Journal (2023): Peer-reviewed app review
• National Foreign Language Resource Center (2025): Academic review covering segmental/suprasegmental features

The app focuses on phoneme-level pronunciation feedback and has been the subject of L2 acquisition research. Does this seem like it would meet WP:GNG? Full discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apps#Notability check: BoldVoice (accent coaching app). ~2026-81303-3 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

The article Generative principle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for almost 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. There's a bibliography, but not a single citation about this hypothesis. This has also aged poorly as an idea. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Oklopfer and Kwamikagami: Should we mention palatalized velars as an alternative term or representation of post-palatal or pre-velar consonants, but mention they can have a palatal release instead, as I've done here and here? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 02:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think we need better sources: I believe that [c] is not the same as [kj], but don't know how robust that distinction is in practice. Like the difference between [ɲ] and [n̠j], it may just be a matter of the transcriber not being very precise. If that's the case, then IMO the palatal template should stick to describing a palatal articulation. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

And the line in that distinction becomes even thinner in the case of [c̠]/[k̟] which BodhiHarp is referring to, but [kj] may still just be a velar plosive with approximant-like release. It is rather ambiguous. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

If this is in your "wheelhouse", please add citations where needed. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:English personal pronouns#Requested move 2 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

This article has had minimal citations for over a decade, and until my edits to it a few months ago, had no footnotes either.

As it stands right now, it is almost entirely about sibilants, and in large part equivalent to Sibilant §Tongue shape (which links to it as a main article, but is arguably less descriptive than the section), and for non-sibilants chalks it up to secondary articulation, even though sibilants have plenty of attestation for secondary articulation, too.

There is currently one redirect to it, domed consonant, which is barely explained and may well be better off pointing to the section on sibilants.

Realistically, is it worth expanding the article? Should it face WP:TNT? Should it instead be turned into a redirect elsewhere (and if so, where)? Or should it just be deleted entirely? ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

After a passing look at the prose, I'm not sure how this is not just a subsection of Place of articulation or similar. I have more of a background in phonology than phonetics, but this feels like it should be a subsection of the PoA. Ping me if this gets brought to AfD; I will suggest a redirect. Seems unreasonable to keep on its own unless a more phonetic-grounded editor can dispute. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have since updated the article to make the distinction clearer based on Catford's Fundamental Problems in Phonetics and L&M's SOWL, but IMO it is still too sibilant heavy to warrant not simply being merged into the section on the sibilant page. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Requested move 24 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Should it exist though? The "progressive past" in the "see also"-section is a redirect; this one could be redirected to Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Present_progressive by analogy. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 15:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can you do that? Bearian (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Now done! But I feel like this kind of not-point-giving work is what I mostly do for the backlog drive... //Replayful (talk | contribs) 09:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure that this is the right venue for this question, but... The article Faggin–Nazzi alphabet could be a joke. There are few sources, and they're of mixed quality. After a cursory scan, I'm not sure that there's a single reliable source. Help please. Mgnbar (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can't contribute reliable sources at the moment, but per WorldCat, Giorgio Faggin was the author of Grammatica Friulana among other works (though, there appears to be a Giorgio Faggin who writes on art history and may be a different individual), while Gianni Nazzi authored Dizionario Friulano as well as other multilingual Friulian dictionaries and other references. Both people are also listed at Open Library. The book Salvâ l'Italie e altris stocs has a preface by "Ǧorǧ Faggin" and a postscript by "Ǧuan Nazzi", which might also be them, but I can't read it, so I don't really know. The postscript does refer to La grafie uficiál de lenghe furlane normalizade and La grafie uficiál de lenghe furlane, which I take it are books on Friulian orthography. Again, I don't really understand the language, though. Cnilep (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, this does indeed sound like a joke, but that could just be a quirk of the English-speaker's perception. The work cited by Nazzi is stocked in numerous major libraries, but you'd have to look at it to see if it supports the content. I've asked User:Rgrg to comment - he started this article twenty years ago. Doric Loon (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

It seems like there's good indications that it's not a hoax at least. But I think the practical questions are 1) Is the title the proper term for it? 2) Is it notable? (there doesn't seem to be an article about the standard orthography of Friulian) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 13:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just jumping in to mention this work with a preface by Faggin and an afterword by Nazzi. These at least seem to be real people with published work on Italian langauages, but Replayful is asking the right questions. AviationFreak 💬 13:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Long and short scales has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Pho § Canadian pronunciation. — W.andrea (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Realizational morphology § "Realizational" vs "word-and-paradigm", move request and useful sources. IlmarisenVasara 03:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can someone take a look at this edit request? I tried to answer them but I don't have a linguistics background and feel like I might be missing something. Thanks! InfernoHues (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Szimon017 created some articles on uncommon letters that were subsequently moved to draft, including Draft:Ꟗ, Draft:De with dot below, Draft:Rounded Ve (Historic letter variants) , Draft:Long-Legged De, Draft:ꭤ. The drafts lack references. If you think notability can be established for any of these characters, please add references and submit the drafts. If you think that notability cannot be established, you don't need to do anything. After six months without edits, a draft is likely to be deleted. For an example of what an article on an uncommon letter should look like, see Char (Cyrillic). DowntownUgarit (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello. Lumegrin and I have discussed on the Wikimedia Community Discord server about the inconsistencies of the letter names and case in articles, and it doesn't seem to be defined in MOS:CAPS, or seemingly any other MOS page. Some examples he found are:

• A , or a,
• Ø (or miniscule: ø)
• Æ (lowercase: æ)
• Ż , ż (Z with overdot)

(The first three have already been changed by him)

The solution that he and I ended up with is:

1. For the first mention of a letter that is the subject of the article (in the lead sentence), A (miniscule: a) will be used.
2. (削除) For the first mention of a letter that is not the subject of the article, A (a) will be used. (削除ここまで)
3. (削除) For any mention of a letter that is not the first mention of it, simply A will be used. (削除ここまで)
4. (追記) For any mention of a letter that is not the subject of the article, simply a will be used, per MOS:WAW. (追記ここまで)

(追記) Note from 2026年04月05日T15:45:00Z: MOS:WAW seems to take precedence, therefore both 2 and 3 have been merged to 4. (追記ここまで)

Example article to explain the usage, about the letter X:
X (miniscule: x) is the 24th letter in the English alphabet. It is immediately before the letter (削除) Y (y) (削除ここまで) (追記) y (追記ここまで), which is the 25th letter. Both (削除) X (削除ここまで) (追記) x (追記ここまで) and (削除) Y (削除ここまで) (追記) y (追記ここまで) are often used as variables in mathematics.

Please either:

• Support - Change the usage of letters in articles to match with the solution above
• Oppose - Have a different solution for any three, or keep the articles as-is

As this is my first time personally starting an RfC, I am not completely sure if an RfC should be started for this, however I feel that it is a good idea. dot . p y 04:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support as RfC creator, to make mentions of letters more consistent. dot . p y 04:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support. Seems reasonable to me. Regulov (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Partially oppose – There is a MOS page mentioning this (MOS:WORDSASWORDS), and this idea for casing might clash with it (see third example with the letter e). But yes, use is inconsistent as of date and should be standardized. I do agree with how you decided to format the letters in the lead sentence, though.

Regarding letter names, I think e.g. "Ż (lowercase: ż), called Z with overdot, is a letter of/in the XYZ script, etc." is the best option, as lowercase might be more common than minuscule/miniscule, and I believe this format follows MOS:ALTNAME more closely. This would also avoid conflicts in spelling (min[u/i]scule). IlmarisenVasara 08:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree that this is the best solution for letter names. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ah, I was unaware of that MOS page, I'll update the question to reflect that. dot . p y 15:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support 1 with preferably lowercase rather than minuscule, oppose 2 & 3 as MOS:WAW may take precedence ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment: @User:dot.py hey that 5 April edit to change the RfC to account for MOS:WAW seems to not have gone entirely as planned. I don't think you meant for it to look the way it currently does. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley ${\displaystyle \lor }${\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 23:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Seems to be due to this edit by User:Redrose64, I'll fix it (and obviously change the format of the timestamp, per their edit summary). dot . p y 00:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment (post-refactor): I think the best course of action is to stick to minimal article changes beyond the initial letter name mentions (on pages where the letter is the subject), as it will differ on a case-by-case basis. I don't know if #4 is suggesting any changes, but I think those examples should be left as-is for now. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Partially opposed (based on the current version). I still think the term lowercase should be used, and that the English name of the letter should appear somewhere in the lead sentence (e.g. Y with tilde for ỹ), although I recognize this discussion is mainly about casing.

If MOS:WAW is to take precedence, mentions of letters—whether the subject of the article or others—should be lowercase and italicized.

I believe exceptions should include:

• the lead sentence, as discussed;
• letters in angle brackets for phonological/phonetic descriptions (as in the Ż article; e.g. ⟨ỹ⟩ represents [ɨ̃]);
• and probably other situations that can be assessed on a case by case basis.

IlmarisenVasara 06:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

So to clarify:

X (lowercase: x), called ex, is [...]. It is immediately before the letter y, which is the 25th letter. Both x and y are often used as variables in mathematics. IlmarisenVasara 06:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think there is a bit more nuance. Angled brackets are used for graphemes in general, not just phonology/phonetics, so one could justifiably write the letter ⟨y⟩ just as much as the letter y, and particularly if the letter is being linked, I also think it is perfectly reasonable to do any of the letter Y / Y y / y / ⟨Y ⟩ / ⟨Y y ⟩ / ⟨y ⟩ / Y / Y y / y (though here, the capitals or both cap and lower might actually be preferred to just lower).

I agreed with your original point that WAW may take precedence when referring to a letter as if it were a word, and is a good reason not to alter on a major level, but it is also not the only option. That's why I suggest being more conservative and only changing the introduction sentences with mentioning the primary subject letters to be consistent. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Of course if we were to be consistent the change would not be conservative, but I'm fine with it targeting only the first few sentences (or leads in general).

To be fair, WAW does not really mention casing, so I might walk back on that a little bit. I think the following would be acceptable as well.

X (lowercase: x), called ex, is [...]. It is immediately before the letter Y, which is the 25th letter. Both X and Y are often used as variables in mathematics.

I based my suggestion on that one WAW example (The most common letter in English is e.) but that might not be enough to inform customary use on WP.

My point about angled brackets used in sentences where phonetics/phonology are discussed was based on general use in language articles (which, in all fairness, are not letter articles), where they are really only used in phonology sections; it was not about actual use in linguistics. As you said, in these articles, angled brackets could be used anywhere because they are literally about letters. IlmarisenVasara 09:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think brackets ⟨⟩ should be used more than they are now, because letters are not words (put a little squarely), so they could be used here (otherwise I'm not sure I see the need to standardize the first sentence of articles this way). //Replayful (talk | contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello all! I'm looking to start a wikiproject that better integrates the etymological findings of the English Place-Name Survey into the pages for English settlements (where it is often missing). Much of this etymological work is, of course, Old English. Would anyone be interested in joining me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust.TSFL (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do we really need this page? I'm thinking about bringing it to AfD on grounds of WP:NOTDICT. It seems rather unnecessary and not worth salvaging with how little it provides. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I think the lenition stuff would be better at lenition. Apart from that there is no encyclopedic content. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree. Teangacha 12:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

We might redirect it to Lenition rather than delete it, but I don't see a reason for it to have its own page at this point. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

There are several possible rd's: syllable, phonotactics, etc. I don't think we can predict which one someone might intend if they turned 'intervocallic consonant' into a link. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's a fair point. Not opposed to full on deletion then. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

In case anyone is interested, I’ve opened a new discussion regarding a possible change in our English IPA conventions at Help talk:IPA/English#Superscript or other form of marking for reduced sounds. Feel free to join. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I've been trying to improve the article on Turkish recently, but I am unable to do it on my own. For example I've been reading a good source on consonant voicing, but I have no idea how to summarize and integrate it into the article; it currently primarily follows the interpretation of only one source (I was the one to add most of that but it should be trimmed). I also found a few sources on gender that I can't access. Is there anyone who'd be willing to help? The article is very sadly at C-class right now. Wreaderick (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Omniglot , which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for determining its reliability as a source. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page . Thank you. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

There's a discussion ongoing over at the RP article on restructuring it to more clearly separate the old standard and the current spoken form. Please come and join the discussion here! ^{[citation unneeded ]} (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Did you know that Assibilation includes an assimilation? This would be a great DYK for the front page. Just saying. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Right now depth charge sentences are written about in the article titles Wason verbal illusion, but I've never encountered that name for this phenomenon. I tried asking if that was really the WP:COMMONNAME on its talk page but I thought I'd being this up here too. Does anyone have thoughts? A move request might be necessary. Umimmak (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

FWIW, I was not familiar with the name, but I'm a sociolinguist and not a psycholinguist. The phrases "depth-charge sentence" or "depth-charge illusion" appear in several papers (e.g. Giannouli 2016 "A verbal illusion revisited"; Kizach et al. 2016 currently cited; Paape et al. 2020, currently cited; Paape 2023 "The Role of Incremental and Superficial Processing in the Depth Charge Illusion"; Zhang et al. 2023, currently cited). The phrases "Wason verbal illusion" or "Wason illusion" didn't show up in my quick search. Wason and Reich appear to call it simply "a verbal illusion".

On a broader note, wouldn't it make sense for similar "illusions" (Comparative illusion, misnegation of the "still unpacked" variety, etc.) to be included in a more general article? Category: Cognitive biases and Category:Illusions don't seem sufficient to the task. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, everyone. After a personal dispute with another editor, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Inclusion of IPA transcriptions. If you’re interested in the matter, feel free to join. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:David Buchbinder#Requested move 7 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just did a touch-up on this newly created article, but feel that it could use a look-over by someone with more knowledge than me. Any takers? Botterweg (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Language grammars § WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 05:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser § Usage of JWB/AWB for reducing phonetics links with templates, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This regards usage of the {{lcons }} and {{lvow }} templates. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey! I came across scientific terminology, and I think it needs quite a substantial rewrite. IMO it doesn't read like an encyclopedic article and doesn't provide enough information on how scientific terminology is created, or its history. I have written up what I think should be done on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_terminology#Tone_&_Article_Purpose.

Since this is quite a big task, I would really appreciate some input & assistance from linguistics project members. Are there similar high quality pages that can be used as a model for this one? Maybe a fellow wikipedian is willing to write some sections on linguistics - e.g. on how new language is spread though media and how that is relevant to science? BennBluee (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, I think this article serves as an important place for understanding linguistics within science. Would it be possible for the page's importance to be assessed? It hasn't seen much love for quite a long time (10+ years), and currently hasn't got a rating. BennBluee (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello all! I have been working on Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages for nearly two and a half years now and finally submitted this massive project to Featured List Candidacy. I would appreciate any and all comments at its nomination page. Hope to see some of you drop by! ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Does anyone know where the creator of File:Celtic languages over time.gif might have gotten this information from? I would like to use it in Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages but it's currently uncited. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

A temporary account flagged a possible weight/fringe issue at Talk:Proto-Indo-European accent#POV a few months ago. The article is rather technical and it might help if someone knowledgeable on the subject were to take a look at it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've taken a look and responded to the editor in the talk page. I'm not really sure what he's driving at or what the "traditional view" is in his mind. Ringe and Kapović are mainstream scholars of the subject who are cited in the bulk of the body, and neither Ilich-Svytich nor Dybo are mentioned anywhere except "Alternative theories". I've removed the tag for the time being. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, the temporary account is correct. The traditional mainstream treatments of accent can be found in the likes of Sihler 1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin and other works prominently cited in the main PIE and PIE phonology articles. One potential problem with the article as a whole is that it is rather impractical to discuss PIE accent to the exclusion of ablaut. The mainstream views that actually compete with those of Dybo and Illich-Svitych (who are, don't get me wrong, respected scholars in their own right) wouldn't really belong on the accent article as much as the ablaut article. The current article, minus the last undue weight section, is about as detailed as handbook treatments of PIE accent get. Kisseran (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do you think it would be best to delete the UW section and move on then for the time being? Clearly the page needs a bit of work, but I'm working (slowly) on improving PIE phonology articles. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it probably would, if we can agree that it is UW. Kisseran (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Velopharyngeal (disambiguation) § Requested move 23 July 2026, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello everyone! I have just submitted Ancient Cappadocian language for featured article candidacy. I would really appreciate any comments, which you can leave on its nomination page. Kisseran (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I feel that all articles for phones/phonemes that are present in English should mention an English word they occur in as quickly as possible. This helps the reader. This is especially useful for vowels. I think this should eventually be some kind of guideline, possibly in MOS:LEAD. Thought I would float float the idea here first. Thoughts? Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

As far as I can tell, this is already the norm for consonant articles, whereas for vowel articles this would be the least useful, given the variation among different English varieties. If you find one where the addition would be useful, you can just BOLDly add it yourself. Given that there are only a few dozen articles at most relevant to this question, (with no prospect of that increasing any time soon), it definitely doesn't need to be a guideline. Kisseran (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply