User talk:Gotitbro

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This should be a level 4 heading, i.e. with 4 = on either side. Thanks for your contributions! —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

You know, I've seen you contributing for several months now, and all this time I was thinking your username is "Go tit, bro". It took me a while to get it! Canonicalization (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Canonicalization: LOL, didn't think it would be interpreted this way (you are the first one actually). Guess should've used different caps. So what finally made you realize the correct username. Gotitbro (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, just a eureka moment, I guess :p Canonicalization (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lol I just got this, I was parsing it as one word and it sounded vaguely Italian in my mind... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Both of you missed the chance to tell him, "Now I Gotitbro". -- Bhagadatta (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nah. I tell you, instead, go tit-bro! PseudoSkull (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. While adding Hindi translations, you do not have to provide both the nuqta and nuqtaless forms. For borrowed words, the nuqta form is the most common one (besides being a faithful phonemic representation of the foreign sounds as opposed to the nuqtaless orthography for such words), so only add the nuqta forms for these. As such, the nuqtaless forms are listed by us as alternative spellings, and it is the nuqta forms that have their main entry; so while adding translations for any languages, generally provide the main entry forms only. Thanks —inqilābī 14:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: I don't see anything wrong with providing both translations, there are no restrictions on putting only the main lemma in translations (Chinese trans contain both trad. and simpl. for example). Gotitbro (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Gotitbro: Chinese is a whole other thing: many people know only either of the Traditional or the Simplified characters, which is why it is done so for Chinese. But for Hindi, it is redundant to show both the nuqta & the nuqtaless forms, inasmuch as the nuqta is only a diacritic whose presence or absence in a Devanāgarī letter does not make any difference in readableness. I am strongly against providing both translations. Let us also see what @AryamanA opines. —inqilābī 12:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī, Gotitbro: I agree that we do not need to have the nuqtaless forms as translations. The nuqtaless variants are not really spelling variations or orthographies; they are either a stylistic choice or due to lack of proper typesetting. Not really comparable to simplified/traditional, where you can't easily predict one from the other and they are used in a standardized way in different places. The nuqta forms are the lemmas anyways. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: So could you possibly do a bot operation to remove all such nuqtaless forms in translations? Perhaps that could be quite difficult, but Gotitbro has added many of these. —inqilābī 17:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

What's with the aggressive stance against nuqtaless translations and manufacturing consensus against them here. Both are valid spellings and denote different orthographies and pronunciations. Aryaman only pointed out that they are not "need"ed, does not mean that they cannot be added or should be removed altogether. I have still not seen any convincing argument against them here or a point towards a guideline that says alternative spellings cannot be added to translations. @AryamanA: Please clarify whether I can or cannot add nuqtaless translations, I believe they are fine and also link to hiwikt which has mostly nuqtaless forms. Gotitbro (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

So @AryamanA how should we proceed? Should the status quo be maintained, or the nuqtaless translations be removed? Either one of these should be made the rule for the sake of consistency, but I prefer the latter. — inqilābī 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply