Talk:Toda language

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toda language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India: Tamil Nadu Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).

Languages High‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dravidian civilizations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dravidian civilizationsWikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsTemplate:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsDravidian civilizations articles

thanks[edit]

this is a cool addition to Wikipedia! peace – ishwar (speak) 06:09, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Thought you might like it, Ishwar. I almost said something on your talk page, but then thought you'd have more fun running across it on your own. kwami 08:50, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

The need for references[edit]

Without references this is nothing more than a WP:OR essay. I tried a banner at the top which was removed by a major contributor here, who requested requests for individual citations. A sample of those I have asked for, but those requests render the text hard to read. Far better to give this article the fullest possible referencing and make it a proper article. Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need a citation in the lead that it's a Dravidian language? Really? — kwami (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article without references is an article without references, nothing more. It might be WP:OR but probably isn't, esp. if it looks to be correct. The way to address this is to mark the article as needing references. Adding "citation-needed" templates in random places doesn't help; these are meant to mark disputed or non-obvious assertions that really do need to be justified with a citation (not uncontroversial, obvious or easily verifiable facts). Benwing (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the article as requiring more references to have the banner removed with a request to mark individual items. So, since it lacks references, what do you suggest? Fiddle Faddle 11:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just blanket tagging it is useless, since I can't see how it needs more sources. You need to say what you mean. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. But those places were reverted, too. So, let;s be clear. When you assert a fact, add a reference to it. When a fact has no reference, give it one. It's a Dravidian language? Show how this is referenced. And carry on that way. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were not "reverted", they were replaced with refs. Which is, after all, supposed to be the point.

And no, we don't need to ref every single point, only ones that someone would need to check up on. Otherwise our articles would be unmanageable. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that is oratory and a somewhat disingenuous answer. If you compare the references requested with those given you will see that there is a substantial shortfall. The manageability or otherwise of articles is not and never has been a concern. The provision of references has always been a concern. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What shortfall? The only things not cited are in the lead, which we don't normally ref, and which are ref'd in the info box. — kwami (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the fact that is a Dravidian language referenced, for example? I see the statement, but this is a substantial assertion, one that I am sure is correct, but the foundation needs to be seen. There is nothing to prevent a reference in the lead. Where are the references to the various unique pronunciations (etc)? I'm not an expert in language nor linguistics. I just see a shortfall in references. I can see that I haven't made any impression on you, and I see little point in trying further. If I do I see the potential for this discussion to exceed the number of bytes in the article itself. I just ask you, please, to listen as well as hearing, and to create a better article because you have listened. Its not as if I'm attacking your expertise, here. I am just asking for excellence of referencing. Fiddle Faddle 11:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted, not retroflex[edit]

Apical alveolar consonants are not retroflex, nor are they "retroflex" (in quotes). Such consonants are frequently termed "retracted", which is not the same. Benwing (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can hardly distinguish them as "advanced" vs. "retracted" when they have the same place of articulation. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]