Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sol505000 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
21,900 edits
re
Tag: Reverted
Sol505000 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
21,900 edits
since I'm the OP and did NOT mean to post this here I may as well move it myself
Line 73: Line 73:


:Fixed [[User:Erinius|Erinius]] ([[User talk:Erinius|talk]]) 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
:Fixed [[User:Erinius|Erinius]] ([[User talk:Erinius|talk]]) 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

== Pronunciation of castellano in the infobox ==

{{ping|Barefoot through the chollas}} Regarding the infobox in [[Spanish language]], do we really need to explicitly transcribe the delateralized variant alongside the one with {{IPA|[ʎ]}}? The merger is automatic, it either happens or it doesn't (for transitional speakers, there is, AFAIK, a chaotic switching between the two phones, without any pattern). Since most speakers exhibit it, we may as well scratch the distinction and just write {{angbr IPA|ʝ}} (or {{angbr IPA|ɟʝ}} everywhere, which would be fine for a broad transcription such as the one used here. Furthermore (per [[Andean Spanish]]), in Northern Ecuador, {{IPA|/ʎ/}} is delateralized to {{IPAblink|ʒ}} without merging with {{IPA|/ʝ/}} (which is very likely heard as a merger by speakers from outside the area), which makes {{angbr IPA|ʎ}} anything but an appropriate symbol for that variety of Spanish.

Back to the infobox, the insistance on including {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}} alongside {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} strikes me as odd. These are definitely not the only variants that are possible; namely, {{IPA|[kahteˈʝano]}} and {{IPA|[kahteˈʎano]}} are also standard in some regions (as is {{IPA|[ehpaˈɲol]}}, there are of course variants {{IPA|[kætteˈʝano, -ˈʎano, ɛppaˈɲol]}} in Southern Spain in addition to that, so even {{angbr IPA|h}} wouldn't be quite correct for all accents of that type). In addition to that, {{IPA|[kahteˈʒano]}} and {{IPA|[kahteˈʃano]}} are standard in [[Rioplatense Spanish]]. If {{angbr IPA|s}} can stand for a phonetic {{IPAblink|h}}, then {{angbr IPA|ʎ}} can stand for a phonetic {{IPAblink|ʝ}}, {{IPAblink|ʒ}} and {{IPAblink|ʃ}}. {{angbr IPA|ʝ}} already stands for all three.

Let {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} cover all that.

Futhermore, at least younger speakers of Rioplatense Spanish have no marginal phonemes since {{IPAblink|ʃ}} in ''show'' is the same as their ordinary {{IPAblink|ʃ}} spelled ''ll'' and ''y''. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sol505000}}:Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers (whereas the numerous other variants you cite, to which others could be added, are more vigorously marked diatopically, diastratically or diaphasically). Equivalences produced by the "merger" (assuming you mean diachronic merger of e.g. ''cayó-calló'') are not necessarily automatic -- or even known -- to non-native speakers who are looking for information and guidance. Thus the article supplies genuine forms for them.
:''Let {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} cover all that.'' It doesn't cover all that and can't. {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} is a phonetic transcription. The phone {{IPA|[ʎ]}} can represent only itself, palatal lateral approximant, not a different phone; that's the whole point of phonetic transcription. And the point of supplying the phonetic information of {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}}, otherwise unknowable without specific effort. (My own impression is that {{IPA|[kasteˈjano]}} is far more frequent than {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}} worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.)
:''⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three.'' Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.
:I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.
:Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.
:In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} and {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}} should stand. [[User:Barefoot through the chollas|Barefoot through the chollas]] ([[User talk:Barefoot through the chollas|talk]]) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
::I did not mean to post the thread here but on [[Help talk:IPA/Spanish]], per [[MOS:PRON]]. Please move your message there and delete this thread, thanks. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:08, 29 June 2022

Template:Vital article


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chh8414. Peer reviewers: Rgima, Jackpaulryan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals

Numerals seem to be missing

Reduction in article length

The article is huge, over 200 KB, more than double the threshold given at WP:SIZESPLIT for "Almost certainly should be divided".

I propose the following:

These measures would chop 80+ KB out of this article, though still leaving it at over 100 KB. Comments on these suggestions? Any other ideas for slimming this article down? Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok with me. --Jotamar (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the first change (removing the huge table from the article) to begin with something. I however think that the section Spanish language#Geographical distribution requires both expansion (particularly the Europe and Hispanic America subsections) and trimming (the Philippines section). Regarding the second point I also agree to some extent: I suggest to trim the morphology bit in particular, there has to be a more succint way to comment on nuances on second person differences. No table displaying conjugations is really required in the main article either way. --Asqueladd (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Moalli: in case they have something to add.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal of moving the Spanish language#Spanish speakers by country table to its own article, similar to how the Geographical distribution of French speakers article is structured. The table is excessive for this article's scope, not to mention filled with questionable and outdated sources.
On a similar note, I too find the Philippines section in Spanish language#Geographical distribution too long for the language's current status and level of importance. Spanish is practically extinct there nowadays no matter how much so-called "Hispanistas" try to revise the article by adding non-credible biased sources. The bulk of that section would also be better placed in a separate geographical distribution of Spanish speakers article or simply redirected to Spanish language in the Philippines. The geographical distribution section should only be providing a summary and brief history of Spanish in various regions, along with any unique characteristics. - Moalli (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Moalli:. I think we have a sort of a consensus in some aspects brewing in here.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speakers table as per this talk page thread. I tried to pull a trimmed down version of the Philippines subsection, insofar there was WP:BALASP issues vis-à-vis the rest of the geographical distribution section (particularly taking into account the arguably moribund status of Spanish language there). What do you think [1]?--Asqueladd (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The most common language in Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The most common language in Mexico. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#The most common language in Mexico until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Loafiewa (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea

The article's infobox states that the Spanish language is native to Spain, Hispanic America and Equatorial Guinea. However, this is not quite right. Not only is Spanish not a 'native' language of the country, it is also only spoken by 66.7% of Equatorial Guineans, mostly as a Lingua Franca among ethnic groups, according to Wikipedia's article on Equatorial Guinea. I believe it would be wiser to omit Equatorial Guinea from the 'native to' part of the infobox, but I wish to consult this first and see other opinions. KOSƧIO (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. The problem was that the infobox field name is states but what it visualizes is Native to. Perhaps EG should be included in some other infobox field, but not in this one. --Jotamar (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the full content of the parametre (I recall having done this already once or twice). Insofar it aims towards maximum gatekeeping, it mixes one sovereign country with a somewhat moot cultural (tangentially geographical) concept. Please take note that the parametre is counter-intuitively named "states". It henceforth leaves out the US, Andorra and Belize, which are not "Spain" nor "Hispanic America", but where there are a very substantial number of native speakers (conversely adding Equatorial Guinea where, as stated above these lines, Spanish is widely spoken but it is the native language of virtually not a single person). If we refer to regions (not states), Spanish is primarily a native language of the Americas and Europe (specifically Iberia), but also North-Africa. Insofar the language is somewhat global and we have this discussion largely reduplicated for another similar "ever-changing" infobox parametre, this issue (the attempt for a well-fitted gatekeeping in this parametre) can be also rendered as "unwise". I mean, particularly as long as "significant minority" countries are featured in the other parametre (they probably should not, by the way) this discussion is a waste.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language map of the world

In the map of the world, the color codes are incorrectly assigned as to where Spanish is spoken. 88.159.135.169 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Erinius (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpanish_language&type=revision&diff=1095679305&oldid=1095675735