User talk:BodhiHarp

Hello, BodhiHarp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Curly letters, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello BodhiHarp and merry very wonderful bad productive happy new catatonic year.

I noticed you had "searching a source for Dutch gong as gong as [ɣ̊oɰ̃ŋ]^ⓘ" on your todolist, don't search further, here's the editor who uploaded this transcription -note the barely deresponsibilising circumlocution- (I also love you. Don't worry, my frindge transcriptions aren't on every page, yet). My aim was to highlight the difference in timing of the nasal closure in the three examples (and the vowel quality differences), ⟨ɰ̃⟩ seemed like the best way to render the incomplete closure period that can be heard in the recording. Although inspected with a spectrogramme there's indeed a period that looks awfully like an approximant, nobody -to my knowledge- reported such thing in Dutch (as nasals vowels are messy and have numerous allophones of which the ennumeration would be useless). Also I saw people describing Dutch /ɔ/ as often articulated at the back of the velum, which if true would make a velar approximant likely to appear.

Little point on the other elements. Dutch /ɣ/ is... pretty controversial to say the least. It's almost never voiced and word initially, some (Collins & Mees 2013:189 ; Taalportaal:§Intra- and interspeaker variation) consider (righlty) initial ⟨g⟩ to belong to /x/. So ⟨χ⟩ for the first sound is a better match (All of that isn't in the phonology page so I didn't wanted to present such transcription out of the blue). I definitely hear the /ɔ/ as a somewhat backer [o] but my own French /o/ can be quite close and the first two formants are clumped together (what you'd expect of [u]) plus the pre-nasal allophone is often written ⟨ʊ⟩. So maybe ⟨ʊ̠⟩ would be a better choice. Ʃouer (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Ʃcip has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 15 § Ʃcip until a consensus is reached. Warudo (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Why add completely obsolete symbols that no-one uses any more? And if you're going to do that, why limit yourself to an arbitrary couple and neglect the dozens of others? This serves no purpose other that to clutter up the article with trivia. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer: Pinging - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 01:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a fine line between mentioning para-IPA symbols which may still be in use, and obsolete symbols which certainly aren't. To some extent, I do see the use of mentioning certain obsolete symbols like ⟨ɩ ɷ⟩ for ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩ which appear commonly in the historical literature and may be helpful for reading and reporting on said lit, but ones which have essentially no usage in the literature are much closer to trivia.

We also seem to have a bias toward mentioning symbols that have been made obsolete in the last ~50 years versus ones older than that, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. For example, apart from the vowels I just mentioned, ⟨dz⟩ and ⟨ts⟩ list ⟨ƻ ƾ⟩, and ⟨ⱱ⟩ lists ⟨ⱴ⟩, while ⟨ɸ⟩ does not list ⟨ꜰ⟩ and ⟨ɣ⟩ does not mention any of its historical examples. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

That follows whether they're mentioned in the Handbook. But I don't think the Handbook is enough to establish notability. Have you seen anything from the last 50 years that actually use ⟨ƻ ƾ⟩? They might probably be removed as well. (Though granted they were official until 1989.) We do after all have an entire list article on obsolete IPA letters, as well as another on the history of the IPA. Maybe we can go by whether the IPA thought it was worth encoding superscript variants in Unicode. But ⟨ⱱ⟩ was only adopted in 2005, so it makes more sense to mention the ad hoc glyphs that were used before then, even if they're vanishingly rare (as ⟨ⱱ⟩ itself is). — kwami (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I do think the obsolete + history pages make it mostly unnecessary to list them on the pages of the sounds themselves when they are largely disused. And I also think the superscript criteria is a reasonable determiner for notability. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, ⟨ƻ ƾ⟩ were official until 1976, and I believe were withdrawn because no-one was using them, unlike the regular ligatures. So yeah, they should probably go. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, can we solve this dispute on diacritics. For example:

• Should we use ç̠ instead of ç̄ (putting diacritic on descender)
• Should we use ʄ̠ and ɠ᫈ instead of ʄ˗ and ɠ˖ (putting diacritics below or above instead of to the side)
• Should we use ʎ̝̄ and 𝼆̬̄ instead of ʎ̝˗ and 𝼆̬˗ (putting diacritics above instead of to the side, or should we place them below?)

- BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 17:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes for 1 and 2; for 3 the retraction sign should go under where there's more space for it. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

(Generally, I'm hesitant to place the retraction sign above a letter, because it looks so much like a macron. That could be confusing to readers -- maybe okay in the text where we can explain it, but problematic as the main illustration. Also, it's so narrow that it barely takes any space below the letter. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Make a soundfile of a voiceless dental approximant, please. Symbol: θ̞ RockyWikiSantali (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done: File:Voiceless dental approximant.ogg - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 18:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Why are you making changes to Template:Db-catempty-notice without discussion and restoring your edit once I reverted it? That's not how WP:BRD works. AusLondonder (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I now see you made similar changes to a large number of templates without discussion in January, without using edit summaries and edit-warring rather than seeking consensus. Have you sought consensus for these changes and why are you making them? AusLondonder (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The information icon seems potentially better for most cases, and some other templates indeed use the information icon, but while it does work, it's inconsistent with the AfD notice, and I guess the old icon could work. No explicit support for these edits. I guess most of the notices including AfD could be altered to an information icon for most cases, and the ANI and AN3 notice uses an information icon, or altering some or all back to the old icons. But, what is your reason for reverting my edit at Template:Db-catempty-notice? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 05:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BodhiHarp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Testing 123, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BodhiHarp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AncientSans, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your AN/I report. I have blocked both accounts. I was already keeping an eye on RockyWikiSantali, because it looked to me like some other account I've seen before, but I don't remember its name. I don't suppose you have any idea? JBW (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Was it User:Kostya-Artist2005? If so, that one is Unrelated per the sockpuppet investigation. - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 23:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

And you accidentally blocked me because you blocked my IP address. - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 23:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@BodhiHarp is it the IP you disclosed on your user page? ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, JBW blocked the IP address I disclosed on my userpage, 208.74.177.57, which is not only an IP address I have edited on directly, but it's also my current IP address, so now I'm blocked for 2 weeks. Perhaps the administrator thought the trouble makers RockyWikiSantali and FonzuHarp were on that IP address, but I doubt that. - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 02:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@JBW can you confirm this was a mistake? Might have gotten mixed up as Fonzu had placed it on their user page when copying Bodhi's disclosures. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• BodhiHarp, I don't offhand remember why I blocked that IP address. Very likely it was as Oklopfer suggests: I got it from Fonzu's user page. If so, it was very thoughtless of me, because I knew the page was copied from yours. When I have more time I'll have a look to see whether there was a good reason for it, but for now I'm assuming it was a mistake, and I've removed the block. Assuming it was a mistake, please accept my apologies
• Oklopfer, thanks for alerting me to this. JBW (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• OK, I have now checked the history of the IP address, and I am sure it was a mistake, so I repeat my apologies to BodhiHarp & my thanks to Oklopfer. JBW (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BodhiHarp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nasalized voiceless palatal fricative, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BodhiHarp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nasalized voiced alveolar approximant, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I was doing some research on a specific consonant, the voiceless bilabial approximant, and found your draft for it. I have added it as a section on the ɸ page. I added my own research to it, and I may add more for it, but it is your draft. Thought I'd let you know about this, feel free to take whatever action. I found it mentioned at (Scottish) and (Sherdukpen?). These would make good examples. Let me know if you have any questions. —It's Okkirae.temp ^('Sup?)! 19:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

All of these examples are incredibly imprecise descriptions and fail corroboration, some even contradictory. All seem to use ⟨w⟩ in some fashion, which suggests that they are just using a reduced description of [w̥], which might be called a voiceless bilabial instead of a voiceless labiovelar for phonological neatness, but still inaccurate from a phonetic standpoint. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

w is a voiced labial-velar approximant. It's possible some may call it a voiced bilabial approximant, but that phonetically refers to β̞ or ʋ̟. - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 19:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. I'm going to try to find higher-quality sources. —It's Okkirae.temp ^('Sup?)! 21:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Found out the hard way why it never made it out of draft. Thanks for telling me, I'll be more thorough before citing sources. —It's Okkirae.temp ^('Sup?)! 23:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BodhiHarp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ç̆, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)