User talk:Chzz

Not here I'm on the English Wikipedia; please leave all messages etc. at w:user talk:Chzz  Chzz  ► 

Hello, please be cautious copying things such as templates from Wikipedia. Sometimes we have the templates under another name, or sometimes the Wikipedia templates are based on other templates that we don't have. For example your link to {{tl}} displays Tagalog, not template. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops, yes, I missed those bits, thanks. 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your Mandarin contributions. Amongst other things, there are two main problems with your entries though: 1. you aren't including the rs (radical/stroke) value and 2. you aren't adding sorting information in the category tags (see the mess here: Category:zh-cn:English surnames). Note my changes at 奥古斯丁. See also How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 23:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

1. Yes, I do not know how to calculate the number of strokes, easily; that is somewhat beyond my knowledge; is there some way in which I can designate that? Or that I can note the info needs to be added?

2. Again, similarly, I do not know how to add the specific change; I just wanted to help get the basic entry; is there something I could do, to make it better? Thanks, Chzz 04:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was basically adding the trans-wiki stuff on these names as best I couldn because after asking for help from many, I didn't know a better way;

If you can tell me how do do it better, or help me, please do. Cheers, Chzz 05:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

All the relevant information can be found at How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry. Have a good read and you shouldn't have any more issues. ---> Tooironic 10:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. A hint for you. The rs value can now be looked up from the existing word or character entries, which start with the same character. Remember to look up both if the first character is different in traditional/simplified. --Anatoli 11:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both,

I appreciate what you are asking here, but all I am trying to do is, get over this info that came from an en wikipedia page, into some kind of appropriate format; it all appears to be valid for Wiktionary, and I can make the basic entries as you've seen...is it imperative that I find the stroke count for each one? Because, as I explained, that goes somewhat beyond my knowledge. The entries seem to meet Wiktionary inclusion requirements, so, I ask again; can I create the entries without my knowing the stroke count... for later improvement by others?

Thanks, Chzz 23:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Stroke count is one of the things that put me off at the beginning as well. It is not an issue since there character entries where the value can be looked up. Each language has specific entry rules, which supplement the basic inclusion criteria. Entries without stroke count will be substandard. Of course, they can be fixed but it's creating extra work. In my preference, it's beter to create less entries but they all should meet the criteria, rather than more substandard entries. Your entry 巴比特 starts with 巴, the rs value (己01) can be looked up in 巴拉克 or 巴 itself. Do you need a walkthrough to help you look up stroke count values? --Anatoli 00:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying.

No, I don't need a walkthrough - I do understand it. It's just that I want to make some 800 entries, and I don't know if I will bother with it, if I have to look each one up. But, fair enough; I do understand.

I suppose my question is: if I am too 'lazy' to look up each of the 800 entries to get the stroke count, is it better if I simply do not bother to create them at all? Chzz 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

My own opinion is no, quality is more important than quantity but I can't stop you working and I am not the only one to decide, please check with other contributors and you may discuss it in the beer parlour. In any case, incomplete entries are better flagged with {{attention|zh}}. --Anatoli 03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's fair enough, and I do understand. I just wonder about how extremely difficult it has become for people to contribute to Wiktionary. I'm an very experienced English Wikipedian, and I've been trying very very hard to bring this information across... the data was originally an English Wikipedia 'Article for creation' - declined, and I thought it might be useful to wikt. I spoke to wikt users in IRC, and was advised to 'trans-wiki' - I flagged it for that, but the tags were removed several times; I monitered it, and have managed to sort that out. After many months, it was still not trans-wiki'd so I read up the instructions, followed them, and did the trans-wiki myself; I was then told that was incorrect, and someone did it via 'special:import' instead - which is fine; better (although the instructions do say that you can do it manually).

Since then, I've been trying to write the entries, as best I can, but I seem to keep hitting these immense hurdles.

Frankly, I'm amazed any new users come to Wiktionary; given that with my own knowledge of wikis, my experience and my persistence, I have still had immense difficulty in simply trying to improve this project.

Anyway - I will persist further.

I have just made 鲍德温. Hopefully I have successfully added the stroke information. Please could you check it, and let me know if that one is acceptable; if so, I will try to create the others.

Thanks, Chzz 15:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quite a few changes. The transliteration was simply wrong. Do you know any Chinese or was it just carelessness? Words, which have a traditional spelling are created differently from those where there is no variant. This is my edit. --Anatoli 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, fair enough. No, I do not know Chinese; I was simply trying to bring in what I thought would be simple info, from the imported article - but, seems too difficult. The user originally added it on English Wikipedia; though it didn't fit with our remit there, I thought it suited wikt (and was told so), but this is all just too hard. I do understand what you are saying; it is just unfortunate that the basic, simple entries for this apparently encycloapedic information cannot be made, but if I can't, I can't. Chzz 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for understanding. The foreign language contributors in Wiktionary are native speakers, advanced learners or just language enthusiasts. Whatever you are, the entries should provide the accurate information. Some work by learning from others. Just importing entries doesn't add much value. You seem to be interested in transliteration of English personal names. The value in such entries is not high, IMHO. I was referring to simplified/traditional Chinese characters difference before, like 鲍德温 (simplified) in mainland China has 鮑德溫 (traditional) variant, used in Taiwan. --Anatoli 04:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

With respect, I think you have not understood the background here;

In early May 2010, a new user contributed a suggested "Article for creation" to the English Wikipedia: w:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Western names in Chinese.

It was not appropriate for inclusion in that wiki, and we discussed that with the author. Clearly, they were well-intentioned, and wanted to contribute this information freely.

I wondered if it would be appropriate for Wiktionary; I checked Wikt policies, and spoke with several Wikt users, who all agreed it would be, and suggested tagging it for trans-wiki, which was done.

The trans-wiki did not happen, and the tag was removed several times by a bot, then by a user; fortunately, I kept checking back, and reinstated the tag (after speaking to the bot owner and then the user ).

Months passed, and nothing happened, so in the spirit of boldly trying to help, I checked the instructions in Meta:Help:Transwiki, and did it myself, according to that guide. I was told this was not correct, so it was re-done via special:import; see User_talk:Mglovesfun#Transwiki:Western_names_in_Chinese.

Then, I have been trying in good faith to create the valid, appropriate entries. I've listened carefully to what has been said, and tried my very best to accommodate requirements.

I am frustrated and disappointed that my considerable good-faith efforts to improve this project, by adding information which seems within-scope and potentially beneficial to many people, has been dealt with in this manner.

I do understand the need for well-written entries, but I seriously question the principle here; unless I massively misunderstand the basic ethos of Wiktionary, then this seems extraordinarily bureaucratic, negative and off-putting to new users.

Please note, I say the above with all the best of intentions - I hope it might help others, in the future, if this can be considered. Chzz 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what the big issue is; you merely need to use the correct template when creating Mandarin entries. Wikipedia has its own formatting standards, as does Wiktionary. ---> Tooironic 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by 'the correct template'? Given the source information (which I explained above), exactly what should I use? Unless I am expected to learn Chinese, I fail to see what more I can do, to accommodate the requirements.Chzz 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can save your translations in an Appendix, like this one. As your translations only show the simplified Chinese, the titles should state so, e.g. Appendix:Western names in simplified Chinese (can be renamed later if it has both). I will check for accuracy, if you decide so. If you don't know Chinese at all, then how do you guarantee the accuracy? I found wrong transliteration in the first example you gave me. --Anatoli 04:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is the correct template - How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry. But if you don't actually speak the language I wouldn't recommend you contribute in it. ---> Tooironic 12:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply