Talk:British Sign Language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bshoukeir24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

ISG/ISL

I'm far from certain this is correct. A recent visit to the deaf centre in Cork confirmed that they refer to their sign language as ISL as well. Perhaps we could consider removing this comment? Marteno 08:27, 27 Oct 2005 (BST)

BSL & Gaelic

Many thousands of hearing people also use BSL: more people use BSL than speak Gaelic.

This is very ambiguous. Do the references in this article to "Gaelic" refer to Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic or to both collectively? Irish and Scots Gaelic are commonly treated as distinct languages. Also, does this refer to the number of 'Gaelic' speakers throughout Britain and Ireland as a whole, or only in the United Kingdom? Iota 21:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally find it offensive that one language minority try and put down another to pull itself up. The Scottish Gaelic language currently has very little official status, despite years of campaigning. A Bill is going to go through the Scottish parliament in the near future, but if the British Deaf Community believes that the Scottish Gaels are getting it "good", they're very wrong. It's true to say that it gets given a lot of money, but this is not spent well, and far more gets spent on the occupation of Iraq each day, than on the language in two/three years.

For this reason, I removed the comment about "Gaelic" as I don't think it is helpful to either the Gaels or the BSL community.

Anonymous contributor,

Strictly speaking the information on Wikipedia is not intended to be either helpful or unhelpful to any cause. I've put the comment back because i think it contains an interesting fact and is not necessarily intended to put another language down. I wish, however, that whoever put the ambiguous term there would explain what Gaelic is intended to mean in this context so it can be replaced with something more precise. Iota 17:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iota, the statement is certainly not a "fact". It is a commonly held conception by some people, which I have come across elsewhere. Where it originates is not generally known, and I have yet to see reputable statistics to back it up.

Minority language populations are notoriously difficult to calculate, particularly as they can be taken to include great numbers of learners, and the "native speakers" themselves vary in proficiency. Older native speakers of both BSL and forms of Gaelic will even deny being such, due to shame instilled in them from their school days. This is another complication. Also comparing a language which is signed with one that is spoken and written is a case of "apples and oranges". Some people have a knowledge of both -- I'm one of them, and I know others. Where do we fit into that?

Gaelic is sometimes used to refer to the Scottish form alone, which I think is a misleading usage, but is common enough anyway. Even in the case of Scottish Gaelic alone, it is debatable as to whether said statement is actually true.

If Gaelic is taken to include Irish, I think that the figure is almost definitely false, since thousands of people from the Republic live in the UK, many of whom at least have a passing acquaintance with Irish from the school system there. The ambiguity you mention alone is reason enough to remove it until it can be justified.

I definitely think the "fact" was added to the article to argue that BSL is worthy of official status because it has more users than 'Gaelic'. I think BSL should have official status regardless of other minority languages' current position.

p.s. The article also makes no mention of Irish sign language. I don't know how widely used it is in the UK-administered area.

More people use BSL than speak Gaelic.

I've removed the above because its factual accuracy is disputed. Anonymous user, would you consider getting a username so you can sign your messages? It's just that it makes conversation easier. Iota 01:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed dubious talk

The artice had said that ISL was Israeli Sign Language, but no such Wikipedia article exists, and I could find no verification of this, so I removed it. The Irish Sign Language article refers to it as ISL, so I'm gonna trust them on this one... Blackcats 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears to exist now... -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The abbreviation is ambiguous. Both Israeli Sign Language and Irish Sign Language are recognized by Ethnologue. Thnidu (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes, especially in relation to the estimates of the number of BSL users (the actual figure is not known as there has never, to my knowledge, been a specific study) and to the discussion of regional variation in BSL. I've removed the comments about 'accent' as this is not an accurate description of the lexical variation in BSL (i.e., the differences between different regions appear to reflect variation in vocabulary items rather than in the 'pronunciation' of the same signs). Adam Schembri, UCL.

Learning BSL Section

As from 2006, CACDP will offer a number of new BSL courses, including a (non-NVQ) certificated Level III course.

Should the article be amended to reflect this?

Beth78 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Although working at the same level, the Level III and the NVQ 3 courses' structure differ from each other. I have updated the Learning BSL Section to reflect the two different courses for that level as well as added links to the NVQ article. Hope you approve. --Dave Gedny 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PopUlantIon Of One UNtil THe 25tH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.218.180.126 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

W.....

I am hoping that some reader of this page may be able to find support or a reference for the use of the "wanker" gesture - to offset the claim that the image should be removed from wanker made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination) Jooler 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry ... it's irrelevant to BSL, much as a "thumbs up" gesture is. Regardless of whether or not there is an overlap with BSL here, it can not be used as a basis for keeping the article in question or deleting it ... and yes I realise that the comment is 8 months old :) Angelstorm 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How we can develop this article

The ASL article shits on the BSL article. The sheer disparity in the volume of text makes BSL look like a homeless orphan sitting on the wintery steps of a dukes house awaiting death or scraps of duck at a Christmas feast. 'Please sir a leg of chicken or brussel sprout 'tis awful cold' 'Away with the crighton. It is the work house or the embrace of the reaper for you.' 'But sir am i not a man?' etc etc if you see my point. So how do we bulk up BSL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.130.77 (talk) 17:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This is because there has been a great deal more research into ASL than into BSL (or probably any other SL), starting with Stokoe's dissertation in the early 1950's and his (with Casterline & Cronebridge) Dictionary of American Sign Language in 1965. If you want to "bulk up" the BSL article, find some research you can add to it. Or learn how to do it and do some yourself! I wrote my dissertation on ASL. Thnidu (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Deaf Project has created a template that suggests some good ideas. I plan to create a Linguistics Section to this article which we can all develop. Anyone else want to tackle one of the other sections suggested in the template? --Dave Gedny 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping to improve the article. As I am currently studying BSL, I have access to various material concerned with the language, and should be able to help with things linked to grammar and structure etc. Also know some about the history of the language and how it developed from using the hands as a counting system. Will dig out my old notes and see what I can put together.--NeilEvans 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, it's improved significantly! I added the part about learning BSL, NVQ and Becoming an Interpreter. I was pleased to see that someone has edited text and that additional information has been added. I was less pleased that my link had been removed from the list! I've put out a request for assistance on Facebook BSL Fan Club and sent an email to Signature (CACDP) asking that they update the section relating to learning BSL. I'll also send an email to the BDA asking for their input. Richard.weaver (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent the afore mentioned emails. Signature has responded and appears to have updated the information regarding NVQ. I now intend to ask UK Universities who have a Deaf Studeis department (Bristol, Wolverhampton etc) to help. I rather disapointed that my link has been removed, again. Whilst we are a commercial provider, the information contain within our website is useful and contains downloads which assist a BSL learner. More importantly this information is free! Richard.weaver (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this article has no information on the structure of BSL - nothing on phonology, morphology, or basic grammar. It would be nice if there were some information available about these topics, rather than just "how you can learn BSL". Not everyone reading this article lives in a BANZSL-using country! I've tried Googling for this information myself, but have only found one link with this kind of info. Since I can't cross-check it with a native speaker, I am reluctant to cite and incorporate the information into this article. Does anybody have access to reliable information? --pgdudda (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found a few other sources, and have added the relevant info into a new heading titled 'Linguistics'. I also moved the info on relationships to other languages there. pgdudda (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Amount of deaf people

The opening quote of "(published estimates range from 30,000 to 70,000 but it is likely that the lower figures are more accurate)" is ridiculous. If published estimates vary, then on what source is the writer basing their assertion that the lower figure is more accurate?? You can't just guess at this stuff. VonBlade 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, so I've removed it. If it has been published estimates of between 30,000 to 70,000 people, than that is what should be stated in the article, unless another source can be procided that states otherwise.--NeilEvans 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Deaf Association's website says that the GP/Patient Survey 2009/2010 found "just over 100,000" deaf adult BSL users in the UK. (I can't find the page on the BDA website now, but I saw it today, 24th Jan 2011. I sent them a query asking for a clearer indication of the source. Maybe the reason I can't find their claim now is that they have just taken that page down??) The BDA page in question gave a link to this survey (http://www.gp-patient.co.uk/results/), but when I followed it I couldn't find any national statistics. The survey in question certainly asked the question "Are you a deaf person who uses sign language?" (You can find all the questions if you poke about long enough on the survey website - the site is not easy to use, though, and direct links to the page on which I saw the questions are not available.) If the figure of 100,000 deaf adult users of sign language was correct, it is much higher than the vague estimate of 50,000-70,000 which people have been quoting from each other for very many years. UBJ 43X (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

16 July 2016: I have found an estimate on the BDA's website and have therefore added a section entitled "Number of users of BSL".UBJ 43X (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the fingerspelling chart really original?

The fingerspelling chart given here is a mirror image* of the one on Waterfall Rainbows, with the color removed and the labeling changed. In case you are thinking "Both charts show the same thing, so obviously they'd be similar," look at details like the exact shape of the crease-line at the base of the palm in I, or the shape of the fingers in S.

The Wikipedia chart was posted by Cowplopmorris, who claims to be the author. I'm not saying he isn't, but I don't see any author credit on Waterfall Rainbows, and the clip art page there says "These images are not to be used commercially without prior permission of Waterfall Rainbows".

* The mirroring is useful, since the chart at Waterfall Rainbows unaccountably depicts left-handed signing. One image, B, is not reflected; that BSL letter is symmetrical as a sign, Type 1 or possibly Type 2 in Robbin Battison's typology of two-handed signs,, but the picture is not quite symmetrical; there is a crease at the left wrist in both charts. The images may have been taken individually from the clip art page.

Thnidu (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Image:Bsl.png states that it was made with the British Deaf Association's BDA Finger-spelling font; this is a TrueType outline font and you'll find lots of diagrams that have been produced using this font. —Sladen (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Links

According to Wikipedia guidelines content should not be deleted until this has been agreed with the contributor. As a contributor to the BSL page, I have added a link to our website. Although we opperate a commercial service, our site offers free resources and is a useful learning aid to BSL students. Should anyone disagree with this entry I would be obliged if you could discuss this matter using this discussion board. Richard.weaver (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding links to commercial sites, as per Wikipedia:External Links, and to websites that you are associated with, per Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest - MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Ollie, I was unaware of this policy. In which case I believe the links should be audited, as many of these links are to commercial organizations. It's a pity as a number of these are a good resource and signpost users to additional resource which could not be contained within this article. For instance, deafbooks.co.Uk is the leading reseller of books on this and many other deaf related topics.Richard.weaver (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested areas for expansion

I've just come to this article and am rather disappointed to find nothing at all about the history and origin of BSL, nor of its relationship with English. --89.124.235.90 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also just come to the article (at the suggestion of my deaf wife) and find it strange that the "Relationships with other sign languages" section should be given such importance. After the Introduction, the next seven paragraphs go on to say what BSL is NOT!! In the current article content I think "Relationships..." should be relocated just above "See also". Comparisons with other SLs are valuable, but not essential for understanding what BSL is. This move might mean that some of the text in the moved section would need to be copied into the lede. (For example, saying that it is the same idea as sign languages for other English-speaking countries, but uses different signs... )

You may see why I haven't done this myself! It is a big change to be applied by an editor not normally involved in the article/subject matter. Many WP articles evolve piecemeal, and are rarely read end-to-end by regular editors to make sure that the whole article continues to cover the topic in a coordinated and progressive manner.

EdJogg (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As one who has repeatedly tried to contribute to these pages, I can report that every single time I have tried to add or change anything to improve or expand the content, it has been changed back to what was originally there and I really don't understand why this keeps happening - it seems clear that only certain permitted changes are allowed.

For example, in the fingerspelling page 'Two-handed manual alphabets', there is a link thus.... http://bda.org.uk/ for the 'British Sign Language font' - the font is not available on this link. I changed this to http://www.deafbooks.co.uk/BDA-Fingerspelling-font_AQ8A4.aspx where the font is freely available to download - and this has been changed, yet again, back to the BDA page where there is no font to download and this has happened several times now.

I really don't understand how the pages can develop if contributors are repeatedly blocked, or who decides who can add or change content? It makes no sense whatsoever to keep changing the link back when the fingerspelling font is not available from there. Cathsmith (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I give this posting 24 - 48 hours before the above paragraph with the links is removed, and I'll receive another warning about adding links to sites with possible 'conflict of interests'. Cathsmith (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd probably have more success if you weren't repeatedly spamming links to the same commercial site over and over. Try editing something that has no relation to deafbooks.co.uk - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any other site where this font is available. It's not spam, it's information and there are numerous links on Wikipedia to sites that also sell things - you do seem particularly fastidious over this one. Cathsmith (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are many links on Wikipedia which have not been reviewed. It's an ongoing project. - MrOllie (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of Cathsmith's insertion of the link to a free download of the BSL fingerspelling font. First, although it is offered on a commercial website, the font itself is free to download. Second, it is intrinsically of real academic value because of the peculiar fact that BSL, despite being a full language, still has no convenient writing system, which is a major impediment to the study and understanding of BSL. Although a fingerspelling font falls very far short of a writing system for the complete language of BSL, it is much better than nothing. I might add that I have no links with Cathsmith other than that I own one of her BSL teaching books. 78.149.49.251 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BSL NVQ level 4 is now level 6

As part of an ongoing reformation of NVQ levels, the qualification formerly called BSL Level 4 is now called Level 6. I've made a tiny change to the article to reflect this, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the new level 6 qualification. RedTomato (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice in the section on becoming an interpreter that the text still refers to NVQ Level 4, which is a conflict with the preceding text. Shouldn't that be changed, or am I misunderstanding the changed NVQ levels? (I'm only bold when I'm pretty sure I'm right!) Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Need for a BSL fingerspelling chart that helps students learn to read fingerspelling

Regarding the current BSL fingerspelling chart: this is the standard depiction of BSL fingerpelling, in which the hands are shown as they are seen by the person doing the signing, with the palms visible. This makes the chart useful for students learning to fingerspell. We now need to add a second chart showing what you see when watching fingerspelling. What the viewer sees is quite unlike what this chart shows. The hands are half turned away from the viewer. Most of the visual detail takes place on the palm side of the hands, but the viewer sees only the backs and edges of the hands, which lack many of the visual details.
A second chart showing the letters as seen by the viewer would be helpful because it would go some way to explaining why so many people have real problems reading BSL fingerspelling. I am not sure that people are really aware of this reason. For example, it is common practice for people to create exercises for BSL students in which a font made up of letters shown from the palm side are used. Students enjoy reading this font because it is quite simple to read, and their confidence grows ... until they come back to class and are shocked and baffled by the difficulty of reading real-life fingerspelling. The current fonts are misleading because they make BSL fingerspelling look easy to read, when in fact it is very hard.
Is there anyone out there who could draw the BSL fingerspelt letters as seen by the viewer? I suspect it will be difficult to make E, I, O and U, and the letters L, M, N, R, T, V and Z, legible. Ideally the chart should include all the variant shapes that one meets too. And then is there someone who could turn those drawings into a computer font? UBJ 43X (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just now found a font for the fingerspelling alphabet of Australian Sign Language (Auslan) which shows the hands as seen by the viewer. It is almost the same as BSL fingerspelling - just the letters J, K and R seem slightly different. It is free to download for personal use at http://www.dafont.com/admangraphics-auslan.font. UBJ 43X (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So many problems with qualifications/interpreting/CSWs

I've done my best to clean up the out-of-date mess here but it feels hopeless. The whole thing needs to be done from scratch. I took out shamelessly self-promoting edits from commercial entities and I stamped out the needless and inaccurate smearing of CSWs. There's still no mention made of SASLI and their registration process. The whole thing read like it had been written by someone who qualified 20 years ago.

Finally, what on earth is this interpreter/CSW stuff doing on the main British Sign Language page anyway? I don't see the French page having an entry on French interpreters. As an interpreter, it was drummed into me throughout training that if there is one thing which does NOT define the BSL community, it's interpreters.

There are now multiple ways to qualify as an interpreter and NRCPD is not the be-all and end-all. What about language brokering, the history of interpreting, deaf interpreters, relay interpreting?

--Terpatron9000 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

BSL external links

I went into this section on Sunday to add link to bslsignbank and noticed that british-sign.co.uk had again been relisted so I removed it because it had been taken off in April 2014 by MrOllie (as advertising) who has removed other similar listings to free items on commercial sites. It was then immediately reinstated so I just wanted to ask if it is now ok to add links where there are free and useful items on sites that also sell things please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.89.235 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

86.4.89.235, As noted elsewhere[1], please give the list of links you would like to see added and give the reason why each link would be useful to our readers. —Sladen (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

OK - british-sign.co.uk is a commercial site but reinstated by you after removal by one of your moderators so my question was are commercial site links now allowed?

Some of the below are free sites and some are part of commercial sites but all have free examples of BSL signs and dictionaries that provide useful references for all those seeking information on British Sign Language, its structures and variations....

1. http://www.actualsigns.com/BSL_Dictionary-i-123.html
2. http://www.schoolofsignlanguage.com/learn-online/learn-online-free-only
3. http://www.artsigns.ac.uk/
4. http://resources4ict.excellencegateway.org.uk/
5. http://www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/bsl/list.html
6. http://www.britishsignlanguage.com/
7. http://www.bslcourses.co.uk/?gclid=CMy6_sq-p8MCFaXLtAodXUsAXA
8. http://www.signworldlearn.com/learners/levels/1/lessons/1/stories/1
9. http://www.bslhomework.org.uk/inside-bsl-homework.php

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.89.235 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question[2] was partially reverted because it removed one link and replaced it with another in the same edit, and without a summary. Where such apparent usurping occurs, it is generally a sign of self-promotion, which is why discussion here on the Talk: page has been encouraged.

WP:EL is the policy covering external links. Whether a link is included has nothing to do with how a site is funded ("free" as in beer, advertising supported, university-sponsored, …). Any external links there should be the ones useful to our readers. I personally would like to see the number of links reduced to five or fewer. —Sladen (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think Actual Signs should be added, this is a Deaf-led free on-line dictionary for BSL signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.89.235 (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Sign Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140303102708/http://www.cohearentvision.org.uk/deaf-users/grammatical-structure-of-british-sign-language/ to http://www.cohearentvision.org.uk/deaf-users/grammatical-structure-of-british-sign-language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Official Recognition

"BSL users campaigned to have BSL recognised on a similar level to Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, and Irish." Is this the best way of saying this? Those three languages have *very* different levels of recognition. Giving it the same level of recognition as Welsh, for instance, would give it the same level of recognition as English, making it a joint official language along with English and back that up with laws about its use by public bodies.

Unless BSL users were/are campaigning for very different levels of recognition in different countries in the UK, then it doesn't really illustrate what BSL users were/are campaigning for.

Also, in the information box, it says that BSL is a recognised minority language in "Scotland, England, Northern Ireland", obviously deliberately leaving out Wales (rather than being a typical oversight). I can't find any references to this, so am inclined to also alter this.

Any thoughts before I alter the article? Ceiniog (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Sign Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604000057/http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/ReportsandPublications/Magazine/MagazineArchive/SPAArchive/SPAJune06/Feature6June06.htm to http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/news/reportsandpublications/magazine/magazinearchive/SPAArchive/SPAJune06/Feature6June06.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224104404/http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/research/deafstudies/DSRU%20site/NZSL%20variation/variation%20project.aspx to http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/research/deafstudies/DSRU%20site/NZSL%20variation/variation%20project.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203094846/http://www.cilt.org.uk/standards/interpreting.htm to http://www.cilt.org.uk/standards/interpreting.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Sign Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719123955/http://www.deafpubs.co.uk/ to http://www.deafpubs.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Job titles CSW

Should "communication support worker" be apitalised? Not according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Titles_of_people.

...capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles:...

The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC).

Bone

Having read the relevant part of Carew's Survey of Cornwall, I cant find any mention that "Bone had some knowledge of English". All it says is that he could lipread. That area of Cornwall was predominantly Cornish speaking at the time so it's far more likely that he knew some Cornish, rather than English. Bodrugan (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the intended suggestion by way of the above is that Carew could read the lips of people who spoke English.

Tyrekecorrea (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of English, just that he could read lips of others (in an area that was Cornish speaking rather than English speaking at that time) and sign with his friend Kempe. So there is no basis to say that "Bone had some knowledge of English", certainly not in the reference given. Bodrugan (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, then, have you edited the text of the article based on this apparent error?

Tyrekecorrea (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

New image

Hello all, I added an image to this page as part of a short-term paid project to share images of a year of culture that was held in Leeds. There's more on the project here and more images to make use of here. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)