Talk:Ɓ

Useful?

I don't see how this is a useful article. We are interested in Simple English not letters from other languages. I read the article and found it totally confusing and useless. Should we be focusing our efforts on non-English alphabets? fr33kman 13:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman I don't think so. Shouldn't we be focusing on English things? Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 13:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think so. fr33kman 04:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It also uses complex language to describe how it sounds. Close your mouth open your lips and make a sound also doesn't tell me anything useful fr33kman 05:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would we not be interested in other languages? We are an encyclopedia and are not limited to English letters, and certainly not "English things". The language that we use on this Wikipedia should not solely influence our scope. --Ferien (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean we should have an article on every letter of every language? Arabic, Hebrew, Thai? What use does that do for our mission? fr33kman 14:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles on letters in other languages with other alphabets at least could be helpful to those studying other languages, and we are here to help non-native English speakers (among other groups). The same question could perhaps be asked about French villages, where we probably have an article on every single one at this point. --Ferien (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Or Italian communes, sigh... I don't think our non-native English readers who are learning English will use our project to learn French, for instance. fr33kman 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here. Although there are many languages, a lot of them share same letters. I think having a collective page for all the letters of one script and redirecting all this kind of page into that one might be a good idea. This will ease the readers trying to learn. BRP ^ever 16:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe both, like the way we'd have a list article for presidents of a country but also individual articles about each one. A combined page isn't always a good way to show much detail. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@BRPever, I'd have no objection to a page about the scripts of every alphabets and redirect articles such as this into those pages. It's just having an article for each non-English characters I'm objecting to. fr33kman 21:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We are interested in non English things and have thousands of articles to prove it, I just don't see listings of every character of every language on earth as helping our project. fr33kman 04:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We have lots of articles that I don't think help the project, but that's my personal opinion. If it's an encyclopedic topic, and I think letters are, then there should be no problem with an article, as long as there's something substantial there. If the article just said it was a letter, then it could be QD'd as having little or no meaning, but that's not the case here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: We use English in our articles, but articles are not limited to English-related things. I don't find the article confusing at all, and I think it has enough information for its own article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of having an article on every letter for every language. What about all of the thousands of Chinese characters? A page for each? It'd be never ending. I think we should just focus on the English alphabet and let other wikis deal with their alphabet. fr33kman 04:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And I know we're not soley focused on English things. We rightly have thousands of articles about non English things, I just don't see the need to include all the alphabet lists for every human language fr33kman 05:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Chinese characters are addressed on enwiki using w:en:Chinese character strokes, which is of course much more reasonable considering the thousands of Chinese characters out there. Kanji also have their own articles, a couple of hundred, so not too crazy. This character in particular is in the International Phonetic Alphabet based on languages and pronunciation, so I do feel it has relevance here. --Ferien (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@User: Auntof6 I understand your point and obviously we have many non-English things here, but does this mean we can start making pages for every letter from every alphabet used on the planet? I don't think we want to do that and I don't think it'd be useful for our readers therefore where do we draw the line? Is any particular letter notable? What makes it so? fr33kman 11:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman It depends on those with interest in topic. I know a few linguists who would think these pages are important. The current English alphabets don't cover all the sounds. There are many words where the written and spoken words are different, and these letters are the missing link. We don't know what one is looking for at a particular point, but if there is any that you think we might be better not having, there is always WP:RFD. BRP ^ever 13:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Good points but surely our readers aren't looking for an English article on how to pronounce Japanese sounds. Right now it seems like everyone is saying it's okay for me to write an article on all 16000+ Chinese characters. I have a hard time believing that's a good idea. This is setting a precedent that could bite us in the ass later. fr33kman 20:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman - if the article is rather confusing, then (say) two admins can decide for a speedy USERFY.--If the user seems to increasingly to be, say, doubling his/her output every day - then USERFY (temporarily) 'protects against a flood of substandard articles.--A quick glance at the en-wiki article, gave me a feeling that our article is only a somewhat similar subject, like 'a close relative'. In other words, a confusing translation of ideas, or a poor translation of ideas. 2001:2020:345:FF03:910E:BD2E:E80B:879C (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Preach it fr33kman 04:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the article? I searched for 'B and found nothing. Kdammers (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it seems to actually just be an upper case B (I couldn't see the thin attachment until I got right next to the screen), but the 'B; article is about the Latin alphabet's letter, so I am still confused. Kdammers (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kdammers It's not an apostrophe before the B; it's some kind of diacritic. You can see the article by clicking the "Page" tab or removing "Talk:" from the web address. Batrachoseps (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, these types of articles are useful, but this specific page is not good. Non-latin alphabets do have a place in an encyclopedia, whether it is in that script or not.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"but this specific page is not good", was said by user:FusionSub.--Then USERFY this specific page.--(At least three people, have said that this specific article is not okay.) 2001:2020:327:EB4E:7919:E33:92E0:7ED3 (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@FusionSub Why is this page not good? It is simple, has basic information and gives us a general details on the topic. I think some links can be added but it is a very helpful article. BRP ^ever 16:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will admit my comments were based on the last time I saw the page and I was planning to comment it then, but didn't get around to it. And when I did, a decent chunk of work has been put into it to make it less bad.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has now been copied to the user's talk-page. See

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atharvawikiwiki&oldid=9801114

. Is everything ready now, for it to be 'moved out of mainspace'?

A 'QD-move to the USERFY-copy that is already on his/her talk page'?--Possible justification for such 'QD-move': Nonsense, because it does not make sense, and 'does not connect dots' with information presented at En-wiki. In other words, it looks like a different subject. 2001:2020:327:EB4E:7919:E33:92E0:7ED3 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the page with the intention of understanding? BRP ^ever 16:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)