Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/November

@Quadmix77 recently made Reconstruction:Old Korean/놀다, which made me rethink how I've been approaching OK reconstructions. Middle Korean 놀다 (nwolta, “to play”) is a Class VI verb, which means that it has an unusual pitch accent whose origins are hotly debated by linguists. So there is no place for an OK reconstruction for this verb; we just don't have consensus on what the OK form would have been. But that doesn't mean that people haven't discussed what the OK form might look like, and it would be a pity for our etymology sections to simply end at the first attestation (which is only the fifteenth century).

In my own OK reconstructions, I've been limiting myself to going back from Middle Korean forms that are the result of only one relatively uncontroversial sound shift, but even then, it gets complicated. For example, *그륵 (*kuluk) becomes Middle Korean 그릏 (kùlùh) but *구믁 (*kwumuk) becomes Middle Korean 구무~굼ㄱ (kwùmwù~kwùmk-) (note that both are reconstructions given in scholarly sources, not ones I made up). Why is this? We don't know. Clearly there was something in Old Korean that made the Middle Korean reflexes inevitable, but we don't know what that is.

Given the poorly understood state of OK phonology, I believe we should delete all OK reconstructions (just about twenty of them exist, all of them created since this September). Instead we should create an Appendix:Old Korean reconstructions, linked in the etymology sections of Korean and Middle Korean entries where relevant, where phonological issues can be discussed in full depth and inquisitive readers can decide for themselves what reconstruction makes the most sense.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, the broad issues (e.g. Old Korean vowel quality, the secondary nature of the aspirates) are already covered quite well in Koreanic languages#Phonology, so the only thing we'd really need is an Appendix:Old Korean consonants to discuss specific theories on lenition and how to undo the merger of /l/ and /r/.

There is also the issue of entries like Reconstruction:Old Korean/ᄌᆞᄇᆞᆯ다, which I think would be better to keep because not only is it the subject of a specific academic paper that reconstructs this form, it is also unrecoverable based on Middle Korean data alone.

So I feel the best solution is:

• Delete all OK reconstructions based primarily on internal reconstruction of MK, and link to an Appendix:Old Korean consonants where relevant.
• Keep OK reconstructions based on modern dialectal data, so long as they have a specific academic reference.
• Keep fringe cases like Reconstruction:Old Korean/고마, which is reconstructed on the strength of both MK internal reconstruction and a direct attestation as part of a primary noun (고마ᄂᆞᄅᆞ (kwomanolo)).

Thoughts?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya Your proposal sounds fine to me; in general I'm opposed to adding questionable reconstructions. Unfortunately though I know nothing about Old Korean. I think if you can find one or two other people with some knowledge of Old Korean who agree with you, that's enough consensus to delete the bad reconstructions. Even in the absence of that, anything that you yourself created and want deleted, just mark it using {{d}} and it will get deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend being more diligent in blocking Wonderfool, he randomly removes quotes like in (edit message "cute quote, but the geezer is German, so doesn't belong in my dictionary") and ("3 quotes is plenty"), detemplatizes quotes like in (edit message "fuck you, template"), etc. Trying to patrol the changes is tiresome. Benwing2 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There were a bunch deleted a couple alts ago as "NDA" which is not a legitimate reason. I restored the one that was on my watchlist. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I caught one like that. I'm not sure it was WF, though it probably was, given his focus on the requests for dates under various names. Pretty frustrating to go through the effort of adding {{rfdate}} etc for all those quotes just to have someone delete the harder cases because they interfered with an obsession to eliminate the lists of requests. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree here. It must be pretty tiresome to go through about 150 edits per day by someone who's doing a thankless cleanup job. Perhaps if we block WF as soon as we notice them we can keep them in check a bit more. We know they're going to come back within a day anyway. Mr Sir Esquire (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone can't do a cleanup job right, they should look for thanks elsewhere. DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've had similar issues with him not bothering to put the right parameters in quote templates. In my experience, reverting is far more effective than blocking. After all, this is someone who makes a game of being blocked as often as once or twice a week. He is, however, obsessed with his edit count and with clearing his maintenance categories.

Just remember that reverting one of his edits restores the status quo, so you can be excessive in your rollbacks without damaging anything. I say that if he's going to be sloppy about how he does his cleanup, we can be just as sloppy about how we undo his cleanup. He treats this as a game, and there are plenty of sports where you lose a turn or or get moved back when you break the rules.

I think it's great that he's willing to spend huge amounts of time and energy improving the dictionary, and I certainly appreciate it. However, that line from the Hippocratic Oath comes to mind: primum non nocere ("first do no harm"). If he's making things worse, he's not really cleaning things up and he shouldn't get credit for making his milestones- if you haven't done it right, you aren't finished. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That said, there are occasions, as at OSI, where where the request template had no business being there in the first place: an IP added a joke sentence with "Apocryphal" in front of it, and it got tagged with {{rfquotek}} even though Wiktionary seems to literally be the only place on the internet with that wording. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing under the influence. – Jberkel 16:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The entry for the word ƿynn, as an alt. spelling of wynn, all how it used to be before all entries were erased. Please. Would one entry make any harm? Birdofadozentides (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides, I doubt anybody is going to answer you, but I will. If you had voted, you could have kept all the wynns you wanted. The vote to delete them passed by one vote. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius, thank you for answering. I didn't vote and I couldn't, I had no idea there was such voting, nobody had informed me this time, last year I've been informed. Before you wrote that I never believed my vote could change much, but now I am actually shocked to know only one vote could've saved everything.

Seriously, how can it be? I never knew there was this discussion again. Perhaps I should've read these forum pages, I'm sorry I didn't, but I was so involved in this, I created most of these alt.forms, why nobody had thought of making me aware? I had no chance to speak. Birdofadozentides (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Birdofadozentides. I understand wholeheartedly. Nobody really tells you about the efficient ways of keeping track of what's going on here. Here's my advice:

• Check your watchlist often. The votes are listed there. They turn "yellow" when they're almost over and "red" on or close to the final day. Anybody who's been here for a month at least can vote.
• Bookmark this somehow: changes in the "Wiktionary:" and "User:" namespaces (+talk). It's an easy way to keep an eye on what people are doing here.

Sorry you're going to lose your wynns. I was against it. The ones who wanted them gone complained that it was too much work to maintain them. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

TBF, and I say this so you don't kick yourself for not seeing the vote, it was a landslide vote. Everything was already said, and a single vote wouldn't've mattered. --{{victar|talk}} 06:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides, just one more thing: votes need a supermajority (2/3) to pass (for / ). 9/13 for option one meant 69%. That one vote 9/14 would have meant 64% (no supermajority). -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius, thank you so much for understanding and being against it, I wish I'd known it all before. Now I don't think this topic would ever appear again, and nobody can undo the deletion, it's too late.

There was also no option to leave everything how it used to be. Maybe we could've agreed to leave ƿynn entries only to main words (like weorold), not to other alt. forms to main words (like worold,woruld). Thank you again. Birdofadozentides (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides, you're welcome. There's a bias here towards status quo actually. New proposals need to get over that huge hurdle of the supermajority (thank goodness!). That weird option layout in the wynn vote was, perhaps by design, somewhat confusing. People might have thought that you could only vote for one option or the other. When in reality, you could vote on both issues (two votes in one). Please consult WT:VOTE for more information on this: in the future, if you find other people who are interested, you might be able to start a vote to allow wynns to return. I would support it. The downside is your proposal would have to get to the supermajority at that point. You'll never recover what you've lost already, unfortunately. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, my apologies. I didn't notice that Victar had posted and that I had overwritten it. There's this weird glitch where when you hit "Publish changes", people's posts get overwritten and unless you really think to check the history, you won't notice it. I apologise once again. -- 08:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC) <= weird glitch #2, only times showing up in the signature. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 09:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius Only times showing up in the signature happens when you put five tildes instead of four I think. Different amounts of tildes yield different results. Guess it's a feature, not a bug. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje. Thanks! Let me try:

• 2 tildes: ~~
• 3 tildes: Dentonius (my politics | talk)
• 4 tildes: Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• 5 tildes: 15:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• 6 tildes: 15:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)~

-- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, a way we make individual, case-by-case exceptional "overrides" to general policy (even CFI) is by getting a clear consensus to do so for some particular entry at WT:RFD, whether that's a consensus to delete an entry CFI doesn't unambiguously forbid or to keep one that it doesn't otherwise allow (which is arguably what most contested RFDs are, but sometimes one or more users will explicitly call an RFD a "CFI override"). And while procedural requests for many or random wynn entries would not be well received (you can't overturn a WT:VOTE via RFD), if there were clear reasons special considerations should apply to some individual entry, you could try and request that it be undeleted/kept. Personally, I'm not sure ƿynn rises to that level.
(But as I mentioned on the vote talk page, I would be inclined to have a discussion if there were cases where, for example, a wynn with a stroke through the middle or through the descender was a scribal abbreviation for something where a stroke was not applied to u/v to indicate a corresponding abbreviation starting with those letters, or where modern additions with w would use a different "diacritic" to put the abbreviation on w and thus automatic redirecting would fail. But even in those cases, the discussion might not conclude that an entry at the wynn form was needed, perhaps instead we would just put a hard #REDIRECT ] from the wynn-with-stroke-through-the-descender to the e.g. w-with-underline where we might lemmatize the abbreviation to overcome any limitations the fully automatic redirect system would have in such a case.)
- -sche (discuss) 17:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All entries with ƿynn have been deleted. There was a vote I didn't know anything about - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns. I found out about it only when it was too late.
Ƿynn is not "just a graphical variant of -w-", they are absolutely different letters, and w the way it exists now didn't exist in Old English. Ƿynn was the letter of Old English alphabet, I know this sound was also written as u or uu, but ƿynn was the main one. People say: "W has been the standard for hundreds of years 'cause ƿynn can be confused with þorn and p." With p maybe - at first glance, if you look more carefully, you'd see they're written differently - but with þorn, here, on Internet pages, not in the manuscripts? How could they be confused with each other?
So why having Alternative pages with ƿynn was so harmful? These pages always had less information than the main ones, they would never become main ones, they just show that things can be written and look differently. People who never knew about ƿynn could find out about this character, they could be less confused when they come across Old English manuscripts and see ƿynn. Look at the first page of Beoƿulf, do you see any w at it?
At the British Library website you can read the Beoƿulf manuscript - http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitellius_a_xv_f132r, and there are also many other Old English manuscripts - http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Vitellius_A_XV (I do hope it's alright to leave such links. This is an amazing site and I found it thanks to that one - https://opensource.com/education/14/5/old-english-open-education-resources).
I admit that perhaps it was too much, I created pages with ƿynn every time when a new word written with w appears because I wanted them to be written with ƿynn also, just like in Old English. Maybe we could've agreed to leave ƿynn entries only to main words (like weorold), not to other alt. forms of main words (like worold, woruld).
I just wish these entries were back. They didn't make Wiktionary worse, they made it more unic, unlike other resources that never use ƿynn. Wiktionary was better than them. Birdofadozentides (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Support -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta keep any eye on the votes listed at the top of your Watchlist so you don't miss stuff like that. – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 16:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Just from a procedural standpoint, you'd basically need to have another vote in order to overturn a vote. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Surjection. This conversation is just to see if there's any interest in its return. If enough people demonstrate an interest, there could very well be another vote with the understanding that it would likely take at least eighteen votes to get it through: where x is the required number of votes in favour of the proposal. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know Old English, but to me it seems that it MUST be wrong to remove entries that correctly show how a word is or was actually written in the relevant language (given that OE is treated in Wiktionary as a separate language from modern English). If a word was written with "wynn" in actual OE sources then we should include it in that form. The version with "w" can also be included, but if this is not actually attested in OE, then it should be labelled as a transliteration or conversion, or whatever term we want to use. (However, I do NOT support making up words with "wynn" that are not actually attested in OE sources, if the suggestion is that this has sometimes been done.) Mihia (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's why I voted for hard redirects instead of deletion, so that the links would still be blue and if you paste a word with wynn into the search box you'd be taken to the corresponding entry instead of the 404 page. But that option didn't get consensus. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Well unfortunately I might be partly to blame for that, since I opposed the redirect option for the reasons I stated at the time. But I certainly didn't oppose it in support of deleting the entries outright! Mihia (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Mahāgaja, thank you for voting for it. Though I didn't like both options, I'd wish ƿynn entries to stay as they used to be, the second option was definitely better, all the entries wouldn't have gone for good like they never existed. Birdofadozentides (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Mihia, the problem is that for some reason ƿynn is almost never used in modern printed or online sources. I don't know what the first person who decided to use w instead of ƿynn was thinking, I guess it was just easilier for them, they couldn't distinguish one symbol from another. They didn't want to make any effort, they were used to w and decided to stick to it.

But is is fair? W didn't exist in OId English the same way we know it now. Ƿynn was the letter of Old English alphabet, it was the common letter for the sound. Yes, sometimes u or uu were used in ƿynn's place, and if some word would be attested to be written only with u or uu, it should be written like this. But not with w, there was not such letter in Old English.

If Old English textes could be published as they were written, with ƿynn and uu / u, instead of just replacing it all with w, we could easily tell how the words were actually written. Ƿynn would become the main letter for Old English words, as it's supposed to be, and uu/u forms could be alternative spellings of main ƿynn pages.

But it wasn't like this, thanks to this tendention words with w were always the main, ƿynn entries were the alt.pages with less information. That's why I added ƿynn forms to every word written with w, because it would be written like this in Old English. Beoƿulf, one of the most famous Old English words, was written with ƿynn numerous times in the original manuscript, but there's no ƿynn entry for it, because in the modern editions it's always printed with w. Why should modern editions be more valuable than the original manusrcipt? Birdofadozentides (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Because if people come here because they're learning Old English, they'll be learning it from modern editions, not from original manuscripts. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Mahāgaja, but if modern editions don't use ƿynn, it doesn't mean it should be forgotten and dropped away. By seeing the same word being written both with w and ƿynn, people would get used to ƿynn and they'd be less confused when they see the original manuscripts. Everything was in some balance before all the enries were deleted. Birdofadozentides (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Modern transcriptions of manuscripts are artificial, moving from a world with arbitrary scribal abbreviations to a world where letters come out of a case of type / computer character set that has limited characters and nice neat boxes between them. And trends in printing have been to eliminate any noticeable ligatures (like ct and st), leaving at best the fi ligature and other transparent ligatures. I think there's a huge gap between what Wikimedia and modern computing let us put as a page title and anything in a manuscript. Is ƿ an alternate form of w? As a classification question, it admits of no definite solution, but I think it functional to treat it as such, and, again, hardly the major stumbling block in reading manuscripts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, but ƿynn is definitely not an alternative form of w. It's an absolute different letter, and having alt. forms with it is historically correct. Of course it could never become the major stumbling block in reading manuscripts, because while reading manuscripts people get used to it, it's not so hard to read words with ƿynn and distinguish it from other characters, so why not to use ƿynn in modern editions too, why should it be just thrown away, barely mentioned? That's a rhetorical question, the chances that the w tendention someday would fade away are slim.

But shouldn't something be done? I agree with you about a huge gap between the modern editions and the manuscripts, I wish they were more alike. These entries were some kind of a bridge. Birdofadozentides (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Wynn is not definitely not an alternative form of w. It is part of the same writing system, representing the same sound, and not used in contrastive ways to w. It's a bit of a stretch, but as a practical matter, there's no reason not to identify w and wynn.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, did you mean "not to identify w as wynn"? Because otherwise it's sadly not very clear to me. Identifying two absolutely different characters as one because they happen to play the same role in the modern editions doesn't seem right for me. I see your opinion on that and it's sad there couldn't be an agreement. Thank you for telling me about insular g (ᵹ) two years ago. Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Under some circumstances looking for forms with “ƿ” auto-redirects me to the spelling with “w”, while in other circumstances nothing is found. Specifically, if the address bar is (e.g.) https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/awake and I change the last element by hand to ƿacan, resulting in https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/ƿacan, and then press Refresh, I am redirected. But when I enter ƿacan in the “Search Wiktionary” box, I am told I may create the page "ƿacan" on a blank page. Can’t this auto-redirect be made to always happen?  --Lambiam 22:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, I had thought that this auto-redirect would work in the manner that Lambiam reports it does not. Can you shed any light on this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I think Benwing isn't familiar with the JavaScript redirect method, so I made the change myself so that edit pages will redirect as well. — Eru·tuon 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Lambiam, I don't think it's possible because the hard redirect option didn't get consensus. I don't really like this option, both of them sound terrible for me. I wish the entries could have existed the way they used to be. Birdofadozentides (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not a matter of so-called hard redirects. If one searches “ogutucu” (using the search box), one ends up at öğütücü. Or entering “üğötöwaç” brings one to “ugotować”. This is all done by the software as a kind of automatic spelling normalization.  --Lambiam 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lambiam, I see, I wouldn't like ƿynn entries to exist that way. I don't know why it works differently for “üğötöwaç” and “ƿacan”, I'm not the person who deleted all the entries. I somehow like it that there is a suggestion to create a page, but you'd like it to be arranged. I'm afraid that if auto-redirect always happens, there will be no coming back for ƿynn entries. Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides: Your indentation style is a bit hard to follow. May I recommend that you adhere to the normal indenting convention: indent your replies one notch to the right of the message that you are replying to, and maintain the same indent level throughout your post. Mihia (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mihia, I see and I am sorry, I was just trying to make the text not be shown as one paragraph. I've tried to fix that, hope it's better now, though I'm afraid it's not actually the same indent level. Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Mihia, I'm sorry for bothering you, I just wanted to ask, if there were a vote to bring back ƿynn entries, would you vote for it? Birdofadozentides (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I should first of all mention again the caveat that I am not personally knowledgeable about OE. However, unless anyone can provide a convincing argument as to why we should not list words as they are/were actually written in the relevant language then yes, I would support that. Mihia (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also be willing to support this, for the above reason. I'd even support making the wynn entries the main form. (I abstained in the last vote due to a lack of knowledge, but the reasons for getting rid of wynn entries don't seem as convincing to me anymore). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mihia, Andrew Sheedy, thank you! Andrew Sheedy, sadly I am absolutely sure ƿynn entries would never become main forms. I wanted it when I first came here, but soon I realized it was impossible. I was taught how to create an entry by Leasnam, it's been a long way. Now I just want them back as they used to be even a month ago. Birdofadozentides (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Birdofadozentides: As the only other person besides User:Dentonius who opposed both options of the vote, I feel that, instead of bringing back all deleted entries, we should create ƿynn lemmas that are attested in manuscripts. — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

inqilābī thank you, I'm glad you opposed both options of the vote, but how can one be 100% sure that the word is attested? Most of the common words like we or weorold or winter or hwæt are definitely attested, but when it comes to some other words like cweartern I don't know in which manuscripts this word has been used, most likely a person who added this word has seen it in some new editions, but these editions are printed versions of manuscrpits, and in manuscripts this word could be either written with ƿynn or with uu/u. I agree these entries should probably not be created within Old English Reconstruction section, because the reconstructed words haven't been attested. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia, @Andrew Sheedy, sorry for bothering, I'm just informing that the vote has been started - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-12/Bringing_back_wynn_entries. Birdofadozentides (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I want to request for becoming an Auto-patroller here. I am editing here since July and I have become quite familiar with editing. I edit mainly for Hindi and Sanskrit languages and I have created a lots of entries for Sanskrit. Please go through my contributions and see if they are good enough or need to be patrolled manually by other Auto patrollers. If they are satisfactory, can I be nominated for becoming an auto patroller?

Thanks and regards, शशकः 10:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA Support. I am not super familiar with this user but they look to be doing good work, and they've done way over 500 edits (maybe that's the minimum for autopatroller?). Any comments? Benwing2 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious of people who ask for this right. There is no advantage to the person concerned, unless they are planning some vandalism. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, SemperBlotto: Hello and thanks for replying! I am definitely not planning any vandalism here, I can confirm. Please check all of my edits and then decide. I am not familiar with PIA, PII and PIE, so usually, I always leave a Sanskrit entry with {{rfe}} in the Etymology section, unless it is from a root or a compound. That’s the only part of my entry which is incomplete, rest I think is OK and doesn’t need manual patrolling(I may be wrong). I fully understand that I get no advantage from that as I have written many emails regarding this.

Thanks and regards, शशकः 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Autopatroller status isn't a right. It's a way for those of us doing the patrolling to avoid wasting time on edits we know are going to be okay. There are lots of long-time editors who aren't autopatrollers. The only way to become an autopatroller is to bore us with massive amounts of consistently good edits.

You're not there yet: I still see people pointing out basic things you've overlooked, and I'm not encouraged by the volume of your edits in Urdu before you realized how little you knew about it. The time to find out about such things is before you start working in a language. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I completely agree that Urdu entries I made a lot of mistakes in the Urdu entries I made because I didn't realise that the Urdu spellings in {{R:Platts}} weren't perfect. Even with Sanskrit and Hindi entries I made a lots of mistakes but now I have reduced creating Urdu entry, and if I create one, I surely ping someone who can verify it.

As for the Sanskrit and Hindi entries, I am quite confident that they are good and don't have mistakes.

As for my mistakes, I was last pointed out (for Sanskrit and Hindi) on 13th of September by User:Benwing2 only, who now say that I seem to be doing good work. User:Victar only said that I had made multiple edits on वार and I shouldn't do that and that regarding Sanskrit etymology of वार, which I copied from वाल as वार is the Vedic spelling for वाल.

I have changed the heading as it is no right, you told me.

By the way, I have done massive edits and have also created many entries. I'm saying again, check my contributions and then decide.

I asked for this a month ago also, on email, which was answered by @Metaknowledge. As that time, I was convinced that I wasn't ready for that yet. But now, I think I am ready.

@AryamanA, Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch Please give your view here. Are my edits good enough for me to be made an auto-patroller?

Thanks and regards, शशकः 03:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Look, the autopatroller badge offers nothing to the holder personally, it does not confer any rights nor is the holder's experience enhanced in any way. It just means that your edits no longer show up on the radar of the admins and therefore they are right to wonder what's the specific reason you would want such a thing to happen. Now the badge isn't a big deal and i'm sure you'll be given it soon and i don't doubt your intentions or the accuracy of your edits. If you do get it you will have to be extra careful because any errors you make is less likely to be corrected by someone else and it can easily be buried under the hundreds of edits you make every day and this will cause the page to display incorrect information for years. Do not guess things like you did at शिरोपधान (śiropadhāna) regarding the accentuation. Do not go by Platts alone for Urdu entries as you have been explicitly told that the script used in Platts is not what is used for Urdu. Be careful to avoid errors like this which as I said, get buried under your multiple edits and may go unnoticed for a long period of time. Also, as already suggested to you, make an empty sandbox where you write the whole entry down first, with all the edits and then copy-paste it to the mainspace entry because it's really fiddly and inconvenient to get the overview of the changes made to a page when there are 30 edits by the same user. (You can then use the same sandbox for other entries). Once these minor things are taken care of, i'm sure, some admin will give you the autopatroller status without you having to ask for it. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 07:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

👌 if you're a good editor, you'll never have to ask, but also, it doesn't much matter. --{{victar|talk}} 07:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: OMG! I am just shocked at what I did - I left an Urdu entry with the title ==Hindi==. I promise I'll edit a page within 2 edits as I can do it when I check it twice or thrice. I have even done those kind of edits. The thing is that I don't like checking them too much and I just check section by section. But I understand that it becomes very difficult for auto patrollers to patrol it and correct it, so not more than 2 edits per page, and that's my promise. I am very happy to see that you have so much faith in me and that you don't doubt my intentions. Showing my mistakes, I agree that I am still not very responsible and I'll first have to correct the small mistakes I make here. User:Chuck Entz said correct that I am still not there yet. Thanks for waking me up as I was starting to think that my edits are flawless and I am extremely apologetic for that. For the Urdu spelling of दाड़िम, I didn't even send a ping to any patroller to verify it. Thanks and regards, शशकः 07:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक Unfortunately I have to withdraw my support. I confused you with another user; I realize now you're the same user who made a lot of mistakes in Hindi and Sanskrit entries and who has expressed a specific agenda to "hyper-Sanskritize" the Hindi language, which is the wrong attitude for a project like Wiktionary, which is supposed to be purely descriptive. I think you will need to improve your editing skills significantly before being considered for autopatroller status, and as others point out, it doesn't really confer benefits on the user who has it. Benwing2 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if someone who understands how to do it could please add Wiktionary:Votes/2020-10/Use of "pronunciation spelling" label to Wiktionary:Votes/Active. I have tried to do it, but I get an error

"Lua error in Module:votes at line 24: Part of Wiktionary:Votes/2020-10/Use of "pronunciation spelling" label with votes not found."

which I don't understand and don't know how to fix. Thanks Mihia (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done The problem was that the "Decision" heading was an L3, while the module expected an L4. I changed the module so that it now also accepts "Decision" as an L3 header. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Surjection: Aha, thanks very much for doing that. I never would have figured that out. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

22:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope there's a way we can decide how best to show synonyms, {{syn}} or the crappy subheader ====Synonyms====, w/o going to vote. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think there is a conflict between the two formats? DTLHS (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't. In fact, I really don't care enough about the format to pursue this any longer Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The whole concept of "synonyms" in Wiktionary is presently a bit crappy. True synonyms, i.e. words that can be used interchangeably with no alteration of meaning or nuance or register, whatever the context, are quite rare, I would say. Many alleged "synonyms" are nothing of the sort. Mihia (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

But a very common use of a thesaurus is to find words that are only somewhat similar, since the writer couldn't find the best fit in their head. Equinox ◑ 02:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to us listing "similar" words, I just object to labelling these "synonyms". Mihia (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's the way most people use the word. I think it's possible to argue that there are no true synonyms, while still using the word for near-synonyms. I think what matters is whether one word could be used in place of another, even if only in very limited contexts. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Then "most people" are wrong. Mihia (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow the model of t:zh-forms? I think it will be more convenient. Most of entries may not even need manual |kyu= input any more.

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233): -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

{{zh-forms}} shows simplified and traditional forms equally, which is OK because they are used in Mainland China and Taiwan respectively. On the other hand, since kyujitai are no longer used, showing them equally with shinjitai doesn’t seem to be a good idea. We should use smaller characters for kyujitai, for example. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, kyujitai is more for reference only, but it'll be better if we can automate it. Shen233 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Me too, I'd rather see kyujitai in the alt forms section with a label, rather than next to the modern forms. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with moving the kyujitai elsewhere. Kind of weird keeping it next to the modern form, which might confuse some people. While we're on this topic, what about old kana usage? Keeping it around is the same as keeping kyujitai around. It is no longer the standard spelling of Japanese, and having them next to the modern ones does not seem like a great idea. Onionbar (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onionbar: Thank you for asking this question. I agree that old kana in the header are somehow "not beautiful". But I have not yet come up with an answer. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts after reading the above:

• Kyūjitai might not be used currently in standard written style, but kyūjitai characters aren't all that rare either: they are the standard forms for older texts from before the spelling reforms of the late 1800s and the 1900s, and they crop up from time to time in modern writings as well, including the occasional set usage in a particular phrase, or a stylistic decision by an author.
• Likewise, historical kana spellings are, well, historical, and thus the standard spellings in older texts. Sometimes modern authors use these older spellings intentionally, and they're also important for understanding etymological connections.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to including these two pieces of information (kyūjitai and historical kana spellings), but I do want to be clear that I think we would serve our readers poorly if we left them out of our entries altogether.

The question is, where should we put these strings?

• The headword line:

The kyūjitai and historical kana strings in existing entries are entered into the headword templates, such as {{ja-noun}} or {{ja-adj}}. One option would be to rework the output of these templates to display the kyūjitai and historical kana somewhere else, perhaps in a right-aligned box similar to {{ja-kanjitab}}.

However, there appears to be a growing sense above (and in other threads over time) that the headword line is not the best place for either kyūjitai or historical kana. I generally agree with this. For any entry with more than one part-of-speech header, editors have to enter the same strings in multiple places, which is tedious and potentially error-prone.

• In {{ja-kanjitab}}:

This seems appropriate for kyūjitai, since this template is intended to handle the kanji spellings. Thinking it through, I imagine that the template could potentially check the headword and automatically determine if the headword is kyūjitai or shinjitai, and add the opposite spelling in the alt display box, ideally with a label to clarify.

I don't think {{ja-kanjitab}} is the right place for historical kana spellings -- at least, not as {{ja-kanjitab}} currently displays things. Maybe if the template also output a separate display box, or a separate section of the alt display box, that was specifically for historical / modern kana spellings -- checking the headword to determine if the current entry is an historical or a modern spelling, and displaying the opposite one.

This is a good discussion. I really like how people are thinking of different and better ways to display our data. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't oppose having them around, in fact, I love seeing them, though it is cleaner to separate them from shinjitai and modern kana. I think {{ja-kanjitab}} is suitable for kyujitai as well, but I am not sure, like you mentioned, if it is good for historical kana. If someone is able to make {{ja-kanjitab}} specifically display them, as you suggested, then it'll probably work. I was considering of maybe have an entire new section for them, but that doesn't sound great. I also agree that kyujitai & historical kana are vital for etymology and other stuff, it's without a doubt important to keep, but just not mixed with modern ones. By the way, what about extended shinjitai? Certain words like 摑む, 我が儘, et cetera can be written in kyujitai or shinjitai depending on the user's preferences. Should we just ignore that and have the {{ja-verb|つかむ|kyu=摑む}} hang around? It also feels weird making the extended version, which is the unofficial script, the main page instead of the official one. Onionbar (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I updated mod:ja-kanjitab. You can check 仮想 and mod:ja/data/kanji/仮 to see how it works. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If we were to have no problem with this, we would go on to create kyujitai data for other kanji. Before this is done, some Japanese words will have incorrect forms displayed, like in 仮釈放. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since implementation of this feature requires a large number of small data-storing modules, we may want to decide formally whether to create them and what their contents consist of. Any ideas?

Here are 4 options I can think of now:

1. Don't use these modules, because they are difficult to maintain. Perhaps place the kyujitai data in mod:ja/data.
2. After Module:ja/data/kanji/歓: kyujitai info only.
3. After Module:ja/data/kanji/亜: kyujitai and kanji grade. With this we can remove kanji grade tables from mod:ja/data, which very slightly improves lua memory performance.
4. After Module:ja/data/kanji/仮: kyujitai and common on'yomi readings. This may help automatizing the rubies, but it seems not very efficient.

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Dixtosa, Kc kennylau, Rua, Ruakh, ZxxZxxZ, Erutuon, Jberkel, JohnC5, Benwing2): -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001: No particular opinion for either issue, although I personally would prefer a somewhat more centralized option for the location of data (maybe something like Category:Chinese sortkey data modules?). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: These kanji do not have continuous codepoint. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also have no strong opinion. I have no objection to any of these, and I like the look of 仮想, but don't feel competent to weigh the specific differences among the options suggested. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001: At 楽団(がくだん) (gakudan) at the "Alternative spelling" box the "kyujitai" (should be spelled "kyūjitai") is showing an incorrect form 樂団 when it should be 樂團. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: As I have said above, the progress is only half way done so some Japanese words will have incorrect forms displayed. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I have given a pause to this new feature. The incorrect forms are now removed. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Shifted to option 1. See mod:ja/data/kyu. Some remaining module pages may need to be deleted. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious -- this mod:ja/data/kyu approach implies a one-way lookup. I don't see any matching reverse page, ostensibly at mod:ja/data/shin. Is there any facility for automatically linking to the shinjitai forms from a kyūjitai entry?

Just as an algorithm, is there any disadvantage to creating a data module with pairs of kanji , perhaps even longer tuples of to account for additional variants? In the simplest case, a call to this would supply the spelling of the current entry, and return the opposite. In the more complicated case, a call would supply the current spelling and the desired return type (shin, kyu, alt, etc.). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I am not sure if we really need that. Kyujitai entries should be soft-redirects of the shinjitai entries and t:ja-kanjitab need not do that again. As for other alts, I think giving them in the single-kanji pages is enough. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 I've spotted another incorrect conversion at 略図(りゃくず) (ryakuzu). The correct kyūjitai should be 略圖. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Reworked. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please check for any error in mod:ja/data/kyu. (Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233): -- Huhu9001 (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 I've found mismatches in 広告 (廣告, 廣吿) and 予告 (豫告, 豫吿). Marlin Setia1 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marlin Setia1: fixed. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

In its current form the template is designed for prepositions only. I think we could use a template that allows us to give information on case government (and related phenomena such as bound collocation, e.g. nouns that take specific preps) for other POS as well and that sorts the lemmata in the respective categories ( Verbs/Prep/Adj... governing gen/dat/acc/abl/elat/sep/...). This may not be that relevant for English entries but in other languages it's decisive. Currently we can (as far as I can see) distinguish only transitive vs. intransitive usage, but these categories are far too unspecific and useful only for certain langauges (if at all). --Akletos (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is the correct place to suggest this. Anyway, I've been thinking about this for about half a year or so. Since most of the simplified Chinese pages serve no purpose other than telling the user that "(This character, x, is the simplified form of y.)", I think this wastes a lot of time for the user having to click on the traditional Chinese and go to the page. By redirecting them to the page with the actual information, this can save a lot of time. Simplified Chinese is already displayed along with traditional anyway, therefore I do not see any harm in doing so. Most of the Chinese learners are taught simplified, therefore they would be typing in simplified instead of traditional. This can make their experience with Wiktionary more smooth without having to click a bunch of links every time they want to look up a word.

Here is how I propose it'll work:

This type should be redirected:

• Words that do not have anything else other than just "(This character, x, is the simplified form of y.)" should be changed to a redirect. For example: 铁, 电脑, 忧郁, 多此一举, et cetera.

These types should not be redirected:

• Words that have other meanings in Traditional Chinese do not redirect: 体, 台, 云, et cetera.
• Words that share characters with Japanese shinjitai do not redirect: 学, 学校, 独立, et cetera.
• Words containing glyph origin, any etymology, usage notes, or its own Kangxi dictionary page: 虫, 万, 广, 门, et cetera.
• Since second round simplification is not really a problem nor is it used, it can stay to inform the user about its purpose and reason to exist. For example: 𦬁, 𠆨, 𠮵, et cetera.

Hopefully I covered most of it. I strongly believe this will be a good change to Wiktionary. I wanted to do this before, but I was not sure if I could, and did not want to make drastic changes abruptly without asking for opinions & permissions. This saves time for both editors and users. Editors only have to make a simple redirect, and users won't even realise it. Though since a lot of pages have been established, I'd say whenever any future new simplified entries are created, it should be created as a redirect to its traditional counterpart. If this idea gets adopted, but can not be done automated, I am willing to spend time manually change the entries myself. Onionbar (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have been only thinking but not paying attention how entries are structured, then you have missed that 1. (terms that have other meanings in traditional Chinese) 体, 台, 云 already redirects where appropriate to the traditional Chinese forms e.g. 体->體 and are defined where the form has have other meanings in traditional Chinese, e.g. 体 etymology 2, etymology 3.

As for the 2nd of your categories (words that share characters with Japanese shinjitai), it doesn't make sense. The whole idea is to centralise entries by the main form and the chosen form happens to be traditional for technical/maintenance and other reasons. It is by no means to indicate that simplified forms are not important. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose.

1. Pages like 铁 have important information like "U+94C1, 铁 CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-94C1".
2. It does not save "a lot of" time.
3. The mechanism to determine whether a simp. page should be redirected is unnecessarily complicated.
4. cat:Chinese simplified forms will become incomplete.
5. Personally, I don't like inconsistency. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, per the reasons suggested by 恨国党非蠢即坏 above. You also have to consider cases like 谷风 and 红扑扑. It would introduce the additional problem of inconsistency if you handle them separately. RcAlex36 (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, this is our policy per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-12/Making simplified Chinese soft-redirect to traditional Chinese. There's hardly any changes to that since the vote. The simplified forms now enjoy all the categorisation as the traditional forms. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I did not know most of the things y'all mentioned existed. Now I realise the problems it may cause. Thanks for letting me know. Onionbar (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This has been discussed before, and at length. The drawbacks of a soft-redirect simplified-to-traditional system are well known, but unfortunately, due to the limitations of the wiki software, there may not be a more desirable alternative, or at least one has not been proposed yet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently some people are starting to make dialectal data modules for Arabic in the same way there are for Chinese. This makes me very very happy, but is there a discussion about this so I can know the timeframe for the implementation of these modules?--42.28.81.89 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, with no clear timeframe. The discussion is mainly being held on Discord. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We have a whole host of Italian musical terms that claim to be English. IMO these are not English but Italian terms used translingually and should be moved under the Translingual header. You will find the exact same terms used musically in every language; yes, the pronunciation will be mangled to differing extents in different languages, but the same goes for any translingual term. Benwing2 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Putting Italian musical terms in Translingual seems like a good idea only if there is no useful English-specific information about their usage. The four examples you listed seem like good candidates. But on the other hand, acciaccatura needs to have an English entry because it has an English plural form "acciaccaturas". Some terms also have developed common pronunciations in English that are sufficiently distinct from an approximation of the Italian that they ought to be noted; e.g. the first syllable of /diːˌkɹɛˈʃɛndəʊ/ for decrescendo, or the third syllable of /dɪˌmɪnjuːˈɛndəʊ/ for diminuendo.--Urszag (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The argument from a "sufficiently distinct" pronunciation holds for many currently merely translingual lemmata. At least, English /ˈjuːlɪks/, French /y.lɛks/ and German /ˈuːlɛks/ for Translingual Ulex appear rather different to me.  --Lambiam 14:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

My argument above certainly isn't complete. To elaborate, the thing that I would find important is to note for each language any pronunciations that are commonly used, but that cannot easily be predicted or derived in some systematic manner. Pronunciations that are merely an approximation of foreign pronunciations don't need to be included to the extent that they are either predictable (from the general patterns of how English speakers adapt foreign pronunciations) or idiolectal (it's difficult and of limited use to give a transcription for a term if the common practice is just for people to create their own pronunciations for it independently of each other). Latinate terms are an unusual case of translingual terms that are typically pronounced according to pronunciation systems that are predictable, but not directly based on an approximation of any living language. Based on the usual pronunciation system in English, I'd expect Ulex to have /ɛ/ not /ɪ/ in the second syllable, and that is what Collins and Merriam-Webster give. If a pronunciation /ˈjuːlɪks/ is in common use by English speakers, that would actually seem moderately notable to me—at least, as long as it is not something that systematically applies for such speakers to all terms derived from Latin words ending in -ex (e.g. vortex, vertex, codex, ibex).--Urszag (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We have a whole host of negative polarity items listed under the positive form (lift a finger, give a damn, give a shit, get a word in edgewise, know someone from Adam, etc.) and equally as many listed under the negative form (not touch something with a ten foot pole, not know what hit one, not have the first idea, etc.). See CAT:English negative polarity items for some (but not all) of them. All these items behave the same way; they usually appear with a negative ("i don't give a damn"), but can also appear in questions ("does he give a damn?"), conditionals ("if he starts to give a damn, he might actually learn something"), etc. Sometimes parallel terms are entered in opposite ways (have the foggiest vs. not have the first idea). IMO these should be made consistent; should we put them under the positive form or negative form? The advantage of the positive form is that, as shown above, these items don't always appear in the negative, and an English learner searching for them might not think to look under the negative. The advantage of the negative form is that the meaning becomes much easier to phrase, whereas the definition of the positive form is often awkward; for example, the definition of "give a damn" is "To be concerned about, have an interest in, to care (about something).", which is misleading at the very least. One possibility is to put them under the negative and soft-redirect or hard-redirect the positive form to the negative. What do people think? Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Prefix with not only if it isn't possible to make an affirmative statement or question using the expression. We should generate a few phrases for the phrasebook from these. E.g. I don't give a damn; I don't give a shit; etc. And as for redirects, please no... no .... no.... -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite reasonable, but it will require many of the not verbs to be moved; for example, you can ask, "Have you the first idea?", or use other forms of negation as in "Neither has the first idea what to say" or "none of us has the first idea HOW?" I think though there should be a usage note pointing out the negative polarity; just putting it in the category is too implicit.  --Lambiam 14:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I recently added the label "chiefly in the negative", which links to Appendix:Glossary#negative polarity item and also adds the page to CAT:English negative polarity items (or whatever, depending on the language). I think that should be enough in most cases; if not, I agree a usage note is in order. Benwing2 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, some lemmas that are normally used with "wouldn't/won't" are lemmatized with "wouldn't", e.g. wouldn't hurt a fly, wouldn't kick someone out of bed, while others aren't, e.g. not touch something with a ten foot pole, take no for an answer, not be caught dead. Similarly, some lemmas normally used with "can't/couldn't" (can't carry a tune in a bucket also at couldn't carry a note in a bucket; couldn't be more different) while others aren't, e.g. see the forest for the trees. I think we should lemmatize these as well under the positive form, with a usage note and examples demonstrating the prevailing usage. Benwing2 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no lack of uses of incapable of hurting a fly, and plenty more, in negative contexts, of capable of hurting a fly (as in “no one could believe him to be capable of hurting a fly”), so the lemma should be the verb hurt a fly.  --Lambiam 18:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam Yes, this appears general. Hence for "wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole" you also find "won't/not going to/unlikely to/etc. touch with a ten foot pole"; for "wouldn't kick out of bed" you also find "not liable to/not inclined to/unlikely to/etc. kick out of bed"; for "can't/couldn't carry a tune in a bucket" you also find "incapable of/unable to/impossible for X to/etc. carry a tune in a bucket". This suggests all should be moved accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I support having redirects from other common forms to whatever forms we lemmatize, and think they are important for for findability, e.g. from either wouldn't hurt a fly or hurt a fly to whichever form we lemmatize. However, there is a danger if someone searches for a phrase that's usually negative, lands on the positive page in one way or another (including if we have no entry or redirect for the negative page but the search page or something else takes them to the positive form), and takes that page's thus-positive definition as the definition of the negative phrase they were searching for or are most familiar with (without realizing it is in fact the opposite), which I seem to recall has happened on WT:FEED occasionally and been discussed in one or more previous RFMs of entries like this, for which reason I'm somewhat inclined to think some sort of (semi-)templatized usage notes may be a good idea.
I will also say that these expressions are very reduceable, and we should consider how much we actually want to reduce them. Our current idea / 'best practice' seems to be to try to reduce things to the smallest nugget of idiomaticity, but this can be quite small indeed: one can find not only cases where "wouldn't hurt a fly" loses its negative, but also cases where the "fly" part is separated off, like google books:"wouldn't hurt anything, even a fly", or where other verbs than "hurt" are used, like google books:"wouldn't injure a fly", google books:"wouldn't harm a fly", google books:"wouldn't kill a fly", as if not even "hurt" is strictly necessary for the phrase. Hence we have to consider just how much, from the form in which something is most commonly encountered, we want to reduce away... - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that in some cases, one form may be SOP, or may be incorrect. The most notable example is couldn't care less/could care less. Making, for instance, could care less the lemma for two opposite senses (one literal and one idiomatic), could be confusing. Andrew Sheedy (talk)

t:ja-compound now support a new way of displaying and categorizing inflected or sandhi forms. You can try {{ja-compound|遊び|あそび|心|こころ|s2=ごころ|sk2=心|sl2=rendaku|t1=play|t2=heart}} in 遊び心. Any ideas? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you for having a go at this. Initial thoughts:

• Good bang for the buck -- minimal wikicode, all the required output.
• As an etymology, the wording seems a bit backward: this is a compound of pieces, and the second piece is given initially in its altered rendaku form. The rendaku form only exists in compounds, so it's not one of the "ingredients" of the compound, per se. Our existing compound etymologies list the components without rendaku, so this template introduces an inconsistency.
• Playing around with it, I'm curious, why do we need to specify 心 twice, as both argument 3 and parameter sk2? I don't think this should be required if the rendaku form is of the same term as the non-rendaku lemma. If the editor supplies the lemma term and reading, the template could conceivably derive the rendaku reading from that, no?
• As a usability suggestion, more informative parameter names would be helpful. The current parameter names are non-obvious. The t1, t2 are shared with several other templates, and I am familiar with these. However, I have no idea what s2, sk2, sl2 are supposed to signify.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: This feature is intended to serve not only rendaku, but also renjo, gemination, mizenkei and other non-lemma or sandhi forms which are hard to predict. I have tried the more informative parameter names |sandhi=, |sandhi_lb=, and |sandhi_kanji= but I felt they were too long, especially when you need to type |sandhi1=, |sandhi_lb1=, |sandhi2=, |sandhi_lb2=, |sandhi_kanji2=. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We still have Category:Kurdish rhymes, which should probably be dealt with. I'd do it myself, renaming all the Rhyme subpages, but I don't dabble in this area of linguistics. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I'd like to announce that after about 18 months working on it, I'm not continuing with my quote-dating project. I managed to get Category:Requests for date by source down to just 87 authors, and have chipped away at the entries in Category:Requests for date but after searching at least twice for all the English quotes, I feel there's not much else I can do. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks WF - keep on taking the tablets. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Project complete before Christmas (except for one Arabic quote, but who cares, right?). Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The quote at unburiable has had a ParserFunction for a week. I'm tempted to revert it, but I'll give you a chance to fix it first. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Chuck Entz: I have fixed it. J3133 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

(see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/July#Inner_structure_of_a_Chinese_verb)

I edited Template:zh-verb according to the previous discussion. Different from the initial thought, I only included 3 structures in this version: 主謂, 動宾, 動補. Out of the original 5 structures proposed, 2 was dropped: 偏正, 並列, mainly because they are just simply inseparable and I am not sure if it is necessary to mention them.

How to use:

1. 頭疼: {{zh-verb|type=sp}} or {{zh-verb|type=sp1}}
2. 創造歷史: {{zh-verb|type=vo2}}
3. 打倒: {{zh-verb|type=vc}} or {{zh-verb|type=vc1}}

@Enervation 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• 創造歷史 is sum of parts, surely? It's not in any of the mono- or bilingual dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Tooironic: Well, you made it 5 years ago. I think it's okay to keep since we're not literally really making history. (The English equivalent doesn't seem to be SoP.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes I know, lol. I think it may have been a mistake on my part. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Thanks, I think this looks pretty good. I might change the dot to two slashes following the notation in dictionaries like 现代汉语词典, since dots could also mean other things (qingsheng, separator between first name and last name in foreign names). We might also want to put some definitions in a Chinese-specific glossary and link the label to the glossary. Also, there do seem to be cases in Cantonese where it could be separable or inseparable, like 移民 (e.g. both 移民咗 and 移咗民 are grammatical) (Matthews and Yip, 2011, Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar); how do we deal with these? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think "separable" means it can be separated, not it must (say, unlike German). All separable verbs are of course grammatical to remain unseparated. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: But this wouldn't be able to capture the difference between 移民 (both 移民咗 and 移咗民 are grammatical) and 瞓覺 (瞓咗覺 is good, but *瞓覺咗 is bad). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yes, you are right. Some of these verbs must separate. Maybe invent some new notation for this? 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Matthews and Yip (2011): "Certain compound verbs are variable which may be separated or not". Perhaps things like 移民 could additionally be labelled with "variably separable"? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I wonder which ones are more, compulsorily separable ones or optionally separable ones. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: I'm wondering if separability is usually considered for 主謂 and 動補. This article seems to equate separable verbs to V-O phrases. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Perhaps that is because 动宾 verbs are far more common than 主谓 and 动补. And they separate for completely different reasons. 动补 separate for 不 in the sense "can not", not for 了, 着, 过 mentioned in that article. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: @Justinrleung: Does 现代汉语词典 or other dictionaries write a // between two Chinese characters to denote it as separable? I haven't seen 现代汉语词典 except as the dictionary in iOS. Pleco writes // in the pinyin but not in the hanzi. Writing // between two Chinese characters looks a bit awkward to me, and I think in general Wiktionary writes the word unmodified in that template. I think it would be sufficiently informative to simply write the parenthetical such as (verb–object, optionally separable) or whatever we decide is the best phrasing, along with a link explaining what that means. —Enervation (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Enervation: I think modification to this extent is tolerable. As we have Latin headwords with macrons, and Arabic headwords with vowels. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Enervation, 恨国党非蠢即坏: 现代汉语词典 does put the slashes in the pinyin and not between Chinese characters, but I think putting it in Chinese is also fine. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calak, Vahagn Petrosyan, Balyozxane, Şêr We have thousands of translation entries for language code ku. I wrote a script to try and convert these to kmr or ckb. I was able to convert 3,851 cases based on a preceding language prefix "Kurmanji" or "Sorani", and converted another 1,098 by looking up to see if a Northern Kurdish or Central Kurdish lemma exists with the name of the translation target. This leaves 2,849 "Kurdish" translations that can't be converted (almost all of which are labeled just "Kurdish"). I'm thinking of converting all the Latin script ones to Northern Kurdish and the Arabic-script ones to Central Kurdish. What do you guys think of that? For reference, the list of all unconvertable Kurdish terms is here: User:Benwing2/ku-unable-to-convert-lemmas and the entries themselves (including the English term being translated and the translation template) are here: User:Benwing2/ku-unable-to-convert-entries @Balyozxane, could you take a look at a sample of the lemmas and see if all the Latin ones appear to be Northern Kurdish? Also, a month or so ago you compared a list of lemmas against the Kurdish Wiktionary to see which ones were Northern Kurdish or Central Kurdish, can you do something similar with the Latin script and maybe also Arabic script entries at User:Benwing2/ku-unable-to-convert-lemmas? (The Arabic script ones are near the bottom.) Also, I looked at the 1,098 entries that were converted based on looking up the lemma, and in nearly all cases the Latin script ones were Northern Kurdish and the Arabic script ones were Central Kurdish. There was only one Latin script entry tagged as Central Kurdish, which is key "king" (which is wrong). The only Arabic script entries tagged as Northern Kurdish were دۆشین "milk" and شامپۆ "shampoo". While these do not appear wrong, I bet the same terms have the same meaning in Central Kurdish. Benwing2 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hardwork @Benwing2 Here are a few lists:

• User:Balyozxane/common list listed as Kurdish (Kurmanci) on ku.wikt
• User:Balyozxane/ckb listed as Sorani on ku.wikt
• User:Balyozxane/unique doesn't exist on ku.wikt

I checked the latin script ones and they look okay for Kurmanji, I'm not sure about the Arabic script ones but I converted them to latin script on ku.wikt and they all sound quite Sorani to me. So it's okay to move these User:Balyozxane/common list to kmr, these User:Balyozxane/ckb to ckb, and if noone else objects, move Latin ones in User:Balyozxane/unique to kmr and Arabic ones to ckb. Also as mentioned on #Kurdish holdovers by @Darren X. Thorsson, I checked Category:Kurdish rhymes they are all safe to be moved to kmr, as well.--Balyozxane (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Wait a sec. I don't speak neither Sorani nor Southern Kurdish, Arabic script ones might very well either be ckb or sdh so please wait for feedback from someone who speaks ckb. --Balyozxane (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, it is OK; check here plz.--Calak (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calak Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calak, Balyozxane One more thing ... how should we format Kurdish translations? Currently the predominant form is for there to be a "Kurdish" header under which we find "Kurmanji" and "Sorani", but these terms are not what we use for the languages in question. (Many entries are also simply listed directly under "Kurdish".) I can write a bot script to clean this up but first we should agree on the structure. Should we keep the current approach, or make the change "Kurmanji" -> "Northern" and "Sorani" -> "Central", or list them separately under top-level "Northern Kurdish" and "Central Kurdish" headers? Benwing2 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calak, Balyozxane Also, I made a list of all the cases that would end up with a "mismatched" script (Latin script with Central Kurdish, or Arabic script with Northern Kurdish) after running my bot script. These cases are usually either where there is an explicit "Kurmanji" or "Sorani" preceding the translation, or where a corresponding entry is found either here or on the Kurdish Wiktionary. There are only 39 cases; can you check them and see if they are misclassified? The list is here: User:Benwing2/ku-mismatched-script. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved all the Kurdish rhymes to Northern Kurdish and cleaned up the pages accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't list them separately please. "Northern Kurdish" and "Central Kurdish" are scientific terms for Kurmanji and Sorani respectively (in fact Sorani is an accent of Central Kurdish dialect, same for Kurmanji and Northern Kurdish).

Please correct User:Benwing2/ku-mismatched-script per User:Calak/ku-mismatched-script.--Calak (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calak I corrected the pages accordingly; thanks for looking into them. In terms of fixing up translations, if we continue to list them under a single top-level "Kurdish" header, what should the subheaders be? I see three possibilities:

1. Kurmanji vs. Sorani vs. Southern Kurdish (or Kermanshahi/Kermanshani) vs. Laki;
2. Northern vs. Central vs. Southern vs. Laki;
3. Northern Kurdish vs. Central Kurdish vs. Southern Kurdish vs. Laki.

I have written a script to fix up the translations, which uses option #3; this might be the best because it uses the actual language names on each line. But any of the possibilities are easy to implement. (Note that the vast majority of translation tables have entries only for Northern and Central Kurdish, or for only one of the two; Southern Kurdish and Laki are much less common.) Benwing2 (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also prefer #3, more common in scientific studies. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Hi. You have asked me to use kmr, so we no longer use Kurdish/Kurmanji nesting but Kurdish/Northern Kurdish? The nested translations need to be updated as well, then to use the following, right?

* Kurdish:
*: Northern Kurdish: {{t|kmr|pesport}}, {{t+|kmr|pasaport}}

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev It seems to work fine as-is for me. Are you seeing it generate "Kurmanji" or "Sorani"? Benwing2 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I’m talking about the existing nestings. Is Kurmanji considered incorrect? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I see. I'm running a bot script currently to convert Kurmanji -> Northern Kurdish and Sorani -> Central Kurdish, for consistency with the language names used here on Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Calak Script is done. Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sidenote: I fully support renaming Northern Kurdish and Central Kurdish to Kurmanji and Sorani, respectively. I don't know of any dictionaries that prefer those names. --{{victar|talk}} 02:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Previous BP threads:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/October#부아 archaic or dated — Edit warring
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/October#Further disputes
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/October#Disruptive behavior from User:B2V22BHARAT

Despite the end of the edit war late last month, confrontations between @B2V22BHARAT and me have continued.

Generally, B2V22BHARAT's edits require oversight. I have ran into various competence issues (misunderstanding of source dictionaries, plagiarism, childish usage examples, etc.) in the past month while looking over their recent additions to the Korean section of the dictionary. Because of their penchant for edit warring, I have been reluctant to correct many of them.

These are just from the past few weeks after the edit war; in fact, the majority of their edits in this period have been problematic in some way or another. Competence is not necessarily the biggest problem, however. I will admit that I have not necessary been the most civil either, but B2V22BHARAT has more pervasive civility issues, including the use of non-polite Korean speech levels that would already have got him reprimanded or banned from Namuwiki or Korean Wikipedia; abuse of usage examples to prove a point; and puerile edit summaries.

This is making my enjoyment of Wiktionary drop significantly and I would really like something to be done about this.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Karaeng Matoaya, B2V22BHARAT. This conflict has been going on for some time and I find it unfortunate that you both are having trouble getting along. It doesn't have to be like that. Now, Karaeng, seeing you leave Wiktionary because of this would be a great loss for this dictionary in my opinion. It doesn't have to come to that. I certainly don't want to take sides. I have no knowledge of the Korean language and so I can't say who's right or who's wrong here. You both have strong opinions about the Korean entries here. And that's okay. Unless someone's explicitly breaking the rules, I wouldn't hold my breath for anything to be done about their contributions. It's the nature of this community. Some people get along easily with others. Others don't. I'm probably in the not-so-easy-to-get-along-with category myself.

I do have a suggestion for you both if you care to hear it. Why not refrain from editing each other's contributions directly? Whenever you spot an issue, raise that issue on the talk page of the entry and discuss the pros and cons of it like adults. It isn't easy. (I fail at this sometimes.) But you can do it :-) If there are a few other Korean speakers here, maybe they'll weigh in on your discussions too. What do you say guys? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I for one fully back Karaeng Matoaya and find B2V22BHARAT's behavior highly disappointing and non-productive. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Suzukaze-c and I also back User:Karaeng Matoaya. Let's see what User:B2V22BHARAT has to say in his defence. He is acting in good faith but often edits non-productively. We don't block for "the lack of competence" or minor civility issues but disruptive edits, edit-warring may merit for a temporary block. The suggestion to stay away from each others' edits haven't worked, apparently. Let's see what other admins have to say as well. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree on user Dentonius's suggestion: Rather than edit-warring, Karaeng and I should discuss the problem in the talk page instead of revert-warring. And I have never done edit-warring. I'm only here to improve the quality of Wiktionary. I'm also interested in learning and studying English and Korean words as well. The above comment made by Karaeng that I have been banned from 나무위키 and Wikipedia are all false. See my recent edits and Karaeng's recent edit. It'll show what kind of person Karaeng is. I don't have much time to discuss the issue at the moment, but I hope some users can back me as well. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT, Karaeng Matoaya: @B2V22BHARAT has a point there that problems could be discussed, especially controversial ones. By no means, it should always be the case when adding new stuff but when there is a dispute, it's better to seek an agreement. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Karaeng probably thought that I'm banned from 나무위키 or Korean wiki, because I don't contribute in those sites. But in reality, I'm only in here because there is more free press in English sites where I can advocate for the truth, therefore more worth it. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev, frankly speaking it is very frustrating to deal with B2V22BHARAT because of the competence issues discussed above. Generally it's not really a matter of controversy—some of their statements are equivalent to a user denying the existence of Proto-Indo-European and still attempting to edit European etymologies.

Discussions tend to go nowhere because they refuse to accept the fact that academic sources have more validity than Naver-ported dictionaries and online sites. For example, see the current discussion on User talk:B2V22BHARAT#Poor understanding of MK h-final nouns. B2V22BHARAT is of the belief that 밯〮 (Yale: páh), given as an attested form in Yi 2010 (an academic source), is "reconstructed" (Yi 2010 does no reconstructions and is a synchronic treatment) because they cannot find it on Naver. I have informed them that Naver is not comprehensive of Middle Korean forms, and that all scholarly lists of MK /h/-final nouns include entries missing on Naver. They simply do not respond to my point and keep repeating that "바 is not attested as *밯 (Yale: pah) and this is an exception", despite proving no evidence whatsoever. Since B2V22BHARAT has no access to the very large MK corpus (whereas Yi 2010 does), I assume this is because it's not on Naver, which brings us back to the original point that Naver is not and does not claim to be a comprehensive resource of MK.

This sort of "discussion" happens with every single Korean etymology and takes up the whole day until B2V22BHARAT eventually relents. But then I've just wasted the day.

B2V22BHARAT is also flagrantly lying when they claim that they have not initiated edit wars or followed me around.

In addition, I think their personal attacks alone deserve at least some form of reprimand, not least because it has not improved since the edit war. A few highlights:

• 계속 revert할거니까 출처 없으면~ 여기 니 일기장 아니란다~ 나무위키 가서 놀아라 "lol I'll keep reverting you if you don't have a source ~ this isn't your diary here kiddo ~ go play in NamuWiki" (despite the source being given; he was actually reverting the inclusion of the source!)
• "Your 뇌피셜 (hoax) is over. You'll either get banned from Wiktionary. Get out of here."
• "Please not to 사기치다 (lie, deceive) in wiktionary. I'm watching you, always." > This was yesterday.

Again, I haven't been the epitome of civility myself, but I did not ask for their ban in edit summaries; I did not use condescending speech levels; I did not call their contributions lies or hoaxes made in bad faith (at most I called them incompetent or underequipped); I did not imply that I was stalking them.

Finally, I would note that I have not insinuated that B2V22BHARAT was banned from ko.wiki or NamuWiki; what I said is that his use of 해라 and 해 "would already have got him reprimanded or banned" from Korean-language sites if he had made them there, which is true.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

... Karaeng.. We're not here to fight each other.. We should be concentrating more on improving Wiktioary, not banning someone and ruling here monopoly. I have seen your edits and you keep using sample biased sentenses and words that do not match with the current reality. For example, see your edits in 버리다 (beorida). You mentioned in the edit summary as 석보상절 "니저 바리다" (seokbosangjeol nijeo barida"), which is a toally fraud(hoax), because 바 (ba) is never used to mean throw away. And when I pointed that out, you try to evade your mistake by saying "I was just quickly typing". What's your attitude? You're not in position of reprimanding someone. Some of your edits contain vicious lies that I have to clean up in the future, but anyway... let's just focus on the solution.. Let us bring the issue(problem) to the talk page first before reverting our edits, okay? I'm a native Korean and I assume you're Korean, too, but Wiktionary is not like 나무위키 (namuwiki). You can't just ban people just because they have different opinion than you do. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT, you were the person who:

• said "Go play on NamuWiki (kiddo, condescension implied through speech level)
• claimed I was a vandal
• called for my ban
• called for my ban again
• called for my ban another time

You were the person who brought in this notion of "banning someone and ruling here monopoly". And again you now claim I am making "a toally fraud(hoax)" and "vicious lies".--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have suggested banning you from Wiktionary, because I thought you were polluting Korean contents with your personal opinion rather than what is stated in the NIKL or Naver Dictionary. But since you brought up with academic works to your liking, I have not mentioned banning you since then. As you can see your edits in 서사시 (seosasi), you even reverted what Atitarev has put. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%84%9C%EC%82%AC%EC%8B%9C&oldid=60909112 It's not only me that thinks your edit is strange and off the standard. Anyway, from now on, you and I have to first bring the issue to the talk page before reverting. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:B2V22BHARAT reminds me a bit of User:D1gggg, who was eventually blocked. I have had good interactions with User:Karaeng Matoaya and do not want to see them leave this project. Benwing2 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My one interaction with B2V22BHARAT (the one linked about them denying the validity of PIE and comparative reconstruction) was very facepalm-inducing and I can see how this user seems to believe they have more expertise on some subjects than they actually do--it appears to me that Karaeng Motoaya has dealt with all this in a very civil and level-headed manner. I don't know either of y'all well though so I will let others weigh in. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You guys should see what Karaeng has been doing to Korean edits. If it were not for me... ha... B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, just look at 버리다 (beorida)!!!! Cunning and manipulative. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT, "you guys should see what Karaeng has been doing to Korean edits" ticked me off the wrong way, so let's compare the time between the two most recent edit wars (12:50 November 10 and 12:00 November 15). In that time, B2V22BHARAT has:

• Added a plagiarized definition
• Added incorrect information on the reflexes of MiSk /z-/
• Added an unhelpful quotation
• Added a unwieldy quotation each to 제작, 가설, 바로잡다 that need more idiomatic translations
• Added about seven or eight noun entries
• Added a (correct) etymology at 검정, done some cleanup at 색깔

In the same time, I have:

Truly, "cunning and manipulative".--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you're a talented user, but your Korean edits seem to be a little bit off the standard. That's all I'm pointing about, really; Also, I apologize in this space about mentioning ban or things like that. I'll not repeat that mistake. Sorry about that. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again @Karaeng Matoaya, B2V22BHARAT. The important thing I've seen here is that you both seem willing to discuss. Bringing up the past problems you've had with each other really won't help. Very few of us here are in a position to decide who's right or wrong. This seems like something only you two can work out. Are there any other active Korean editors besides you two? No wonder it might seem that you're following each other's work closely. I actively monitor contributions in my area of specialty, so chances are anyone's who's editing where I am will run into me eventually. Perhaps you two would be interested in leaving the transgressions of the past in the past? Going forward, as suggested before, use those entry discussion pages and avoid editing each other's work directly. You'll find that as you discuss with each other more, you might both end up learning from each other. And don't think for a moment that you don't have things to learn from each other ... You can do it guys. Do you agree to try this? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius Hi. Thank you for intervening. I think Karaeng and I are the only active South Korean users. I hope many people who are proficient in Korean linguistics intervene. Because if there is only one user, the editing will be biased. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And also, I will try to utilize the talk page as much as I can to avoid edit(revert) warring with Karaeng. And I would like to suggest Karaeng to put reference to what he's saying, because sometimes he forgets this. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thing I'll add is this: Be grateful that you have each other. It could be worse. I'm the only person editing right now where I am. I *wish* there were more people working on my part of the dictionary. You can be an asset to each other. As I understand it, you both want the South Korean dictionary to grow, true? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks for your advice. May the spirit be with you on your journey. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya, B2V22BHARAT: Thank you for your contributions. Please continue to try to solve your disagreements peacefully. There is apparently no appetite to block any of you.

I need to correct User:Dentonius's message regarding "the South Korean dictionary" above. At the English Wiktionary, we are English-foreign two way language dictionaries and we don't specifically create "South Korean" contents but general Korean, even if it tends to be more South Korean-oriented and is the default variety for well-known reasons (resources, contributors). We are adding North Korean terms as well. If terms are not labelled as {{lb|ko|North Korea}}, they are either both (generic Korean) or South Korean, especially with a large number of modern loanwords, which may or may not be used in the North). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Having seen B2V22BHARAT's response as well as more of the evidence, I'd also like to bring up their copyright violations. @KevinUp:, who became inactive in February, first spotted B2V22's copyvios in April 2019 (!!) and clearly this is continuing with lots of their definitions copied from Naver with no attempt to even make minor alterations. Their lack of even basic civility, constant edit warring, and generally wrong edits is enough evidence for me. As an uninvolved admin, I'm going to put a 1-month block (user can appeal but I think a break at least is necessary) if no one uninvolved is opposing. We need to aggressively patrol entries in languages that have no admins, it's the only way to ensure quality. Even disregarding the civility/edit warring issues, copyvios over a greater than 1 year period aren't okay. @Karaeng Matoaya, Atitarev, B2V22BHARAT: —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. I could be wrong, but B2V22BHARAT's behavior is perfectly consistent with that of the child who has a tantrum every time some new kid plays with "his" toys or gets too much attention from the grownups. Now it looks like he's started going around telling people who disagree with him to stop editing Korean. @Suzukaze-c may not be a native speaker of Korean, but they do a massive amount of unnoticed, unglamorous work protecting our CJKV entries from bad edits. They've been editing in Korean for years, but B2V22BHARAT has only just now discovered that they're no good at it. It wouldn't have anything to do with Suzukaze-c's post above or this edit, would it? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @AryamanA. I think that banning him is unwarranted and uncalled for. Don't crucify the man for something which took place a long time ago. He was warned. I've been following a few of the conversations and I think some of his questions are quite reasonable. In one thread, B2V22BHARAT was being asked to prove that something is "unattested". How can he prove that something doesn't exist? That doesn't make sense. I think B2V22BHARAT was right in pointing out that the onus is on Karaeng to show that a particular term is attested. I think you might very well be rushing to ban a person who *is* trying to improve the quality of the Korean dictionary. Give B2V22BHARAT a chance to prove himself. Watch his behaviour for a while. I'm convinced that he has a lot to offer. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA I tend to agree with you. I see a consistent pattern of bad behavior and I think a block is warranted. Perhaps a week or even 3 days is enough to start with. That will give him time to cool down and think about how to do things differently without discouraging him so much that he would just give up and leave. @Dentonius The point is that this is *NOT* something that just "took place a long time ago". The copyvios have been consistently happening since 2019 and continue to happen despite numerous warnings. Just above, User:Karaeng Matoaya noted an example of a recent "plagiarized definition" i.e. a copyvio. Copyvios are huge no-nos here at Wiktionary; they pollute the good content with bad, and if there are enough of them, we'll get sued and might have to take down the entire project. Benwing2 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius, I already provided an academic source that says the form in question is attested. B2V22BHARAT is claiming that the form is unattested because they cannot find it in a general search engine, and effectively that having access to the Internet makes them capable of doing research on Middle Korean. I don't think you're really familiar with the issue at hand.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would add that their edits may need oversight not just on the English translation side of things, but on the Korean side of things as well. For example, in 박다, they translated the following definition from the National Institute of the Korean Language dictionary:

명단에 올려 적을 두게 하다.

As:

to put on a list to make enemy

Except 적 (jeok) here is Sino-Korean 籍 (jí, “registry”) and not 敵 / 敌 (dí, “enemy”), and both words are commonly used in Korean, so the correct translation—as illustrated by the quotations the NIKL dictionary gives below this sense, which are from historical fiction about putting people in the registers of slaves—was:

to list on a register

I imagine there are more errors of this sort.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya, understood. It might simply be that his translations into English need to be polished up a bit here and there. I'm certain you don't doubt that he's a native speaker of your language. You're the only two working on the Korean dictionary. It'd be a shame for it to become just one person again one day. There must be a way for you two to work constructively. It has to start with listening to each other and taking each other seriously. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 08:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never copied definition from naver except for the direct translation of the English word. Karaeng Matoaya and Aryamanarora are just pointing out my past mistakes which I got banned for 1 day, 1 week consecutively. Since then, I have never copied something without reference. Also, Karaeng Matoaya is also directly copying materials from what he's referencing from. I have noticed this when I read "The History of Korean language" written by Robert Ramsay and Lee Ki Moon. Also, if you guys see Karaeng Matoaya's recent edit in 브 and 압, he has intentionally left out some of the adjective suffixes. I don't know why he does this. Anyway, I don't think it's right to let Karaeng to edit Korean Wiktionary alone. He makes a lot of mistakes, often in a cunning method. Maybe he's scared about the truth. I don't know. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya, @B2V22BHARAT. Guys, you're not enemies. You have a common goal -- growing this dictionary, in particular, the Korean part of it. It's clear that you're not happy with each other's style. This is not your personal dictionary, guys. As more people enter the fray, all sorts of conflicting views will appear. Invariably, you both will not get exactly what you want here. As I've learned, sometimes you just have to discard your idealised version of what the dictionary should be and accept what it is. A collaborative effort like this is bound to produce something far from perfect. Your job is to produce something usable. So if there is some contentious issue which people can't agree on, it might be best to leave it out, to re-word it, to change it to the most acceptable form, etc. I don't see where either of you is interested in making things worse here. To my mind, you both want the best for this dictionary. Otherwise, you wouldn't waste your precious time here. Guys, make it work. B2V22BHARAT, these guys are leaning towards blocking you. I hope whenever that short period is up, you 'll be back and you won't be discouraged. For your part, B2, see if you can address Karaeng in a more neutral and respectful manner. Karaeng, you need to be more transparent with B2. If you know something he doesn't, share all of it in a respectful way. Keep the conversations factual. To both of you, quit bringing up the past. It's not helping. Choose your battles with each other wisely. Ask yourself, is it really worth it to pursue this matter? Does it matter if this tiny little "inaccuracy" remains? The less hostile the environment, the more inviting it becomes. Very soon you'll find that more Korean editors will appear once there's harmony and flexibility. I believe in you guys and I know you'll figure out a way to work with each other well. I don't believe it's just my predisposition towards optimism ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 09:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya I don't think it's right to let Karaeng Matoaya edit Korean entries alone. I don't think he's competent. KevinUp was competent, but he's not here. Karaeng also puts out sample-biased information that are hard for your native English speakers to notice. I can see exactly what he's doing, but maybe you guys don't because you guys are not native Korean. He also omits things a lot intentionally or untentionally. He copies or translates directly from the academic sources(paper) intentionally or unintentionally. There should be someone who can monitor his behavior. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

B2, don't worry about what Karaeng is doing. Your focus should be on the quality of the dictionary entries. There's absolutely no need to ascribe any negative intentions to anybody here. We're all only here for a time to do some work on this project. Our payment is the work itself. We have a reference we can all use free of cost. Every single person here has some kind of angle or agenda. It is better to keep these ideas off-air. Let's not attack each other personally. Let's not call each other incompetent. Nobody here is perfect ... Nobody. Even experts make mistakes. However, we should still try to play nice and listen to each other. By the way, have you both been citing references? I've looked at a few Korean entries and I haven't seen any <ref></ref> tags or citations with {{quote-book}} yet. Is this something you can both work on? Leave the bitterness in the past. You've both accused each other of serious things. You're both making a case for there to be zero Korean editors. Is that what you want? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius Karaeng Matoaya and B2V22BHARAT aren't the only two working on the Korean dictionary. There are a few more active Korean contributors.

For everyone: I've been watching this situation since October when the first "conflict" started. As a native Korean speaker and somebody who also works on the Korean dictionary, I can say B2V22BHARAT has been only non-productive and disruptive, content-wise and behaviour-wise. I have also encountered many edits by B2V22BHARAT needing clean-up or corrections, but I was quite hesitant to fix them due to the bad behaviour demonstrated by this user.

It is clear that B2V22BHARAT has been specifically targeting and stalking (even harassing) Karaeng Matoaya for their edits ever since October, which always results in an edit-war that goes nowhere.

B2V22BHARAT does not understand the linguistics of Korean and its process (they think reconstructed languages are a hoax), especially Middle Korean, which B2V22BHARAT attempts to "correct" Karaeng Matoaya, while Karaeng Matoaya is clearly involved in the academia of said field. B2V22BHARAT has no idea what they are talking about in regards to this field and is under-equipped to make edits in the field. Karaeng Matoaya has been adding one of the best content for the Korean dictionary this project ever had, some of them, the first of its kind written and explained in English.

Karaeng Matoaya backs their claims with highly credible academic sources, which include works by famous Korean linguisits. B2V22BHARAT simply dismisses it if they can't find equivalent results in a general search engine or misunderstands/misinterprets the content or results due to their staunch anti-academia attitude.

That's where the vicious cycle starts:

Karaeng Matoaya makes an edit with research from highly-credible academic sources (sometimes rare valuable ones).

B2V22BHARAT, stalking Karaeng Matoaya's edits, conducts "research" with a generic search engine not suitable for this purpose.

B2V22BHARAT either can't get identical results or misinterprets the search results from the generic search engine.

B2V22BHARAT goes on to "correcting" Karaeng Matoaya's edit and calls Karaeng Matoaya a fraud for listing "biased" academic sources, this arrogance alone is sickening. Somehow they think this is saving Wiktionary from "fraud."

and the edit-war ensues...

In the end, B2V22BHARAT and Karaeng Matoaya waste valuable time and no advances were made at all.

Please don't be persuaded by B2V22BHARAT's rhetoric when you can't understand the actual detriment they are causing to the Korean dictionary. B2V22BHARAT has been taking advantage of the fact that most other people here can't actually tell who is right or wrong. There has been only one person who has been right all along, and hopefully, this is abundantly clear by now.

Their behaviour, especially the portion communicated in Korean to Karaeng Matoaya, wouldn't be tolerated in any internet community. The condescending tone—it would be the equivalent of calling somebody "kiddo, you better fix this or else" in English—and the constant disruptive edits would have been grounds for action.

@Karaeng Matoaya Hopefully, this is the support you really needed. This should have been resolved when the first "conflict" happened. B2V22BHARAT is lucky that we don't have a Korean-speaking administrator looking into this matter. I also want this whole fiasco to end. Keep up the excellent contributions :) — LoutK (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@LoutK, thanks for speaking up. I defer to your judgment. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose both LoutK and Karaeng Matoaya. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, LoutK is not mentioning Karaeng Matoaya's mistakes at all. This is a biased judgment. I noticed many sample biased mistakes done by Karaeng Matoaya including 비금비금(see the talk page). It's too bad that you guys listen to these Koreans. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't listen to LoutK. He doesn't know what has happened exactly between us two. He wants to get rid of me, so that he can fully control the Korean entries with Karaeng Matoaya. You guys would need me. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If it weren't for me, you guys wouldn't have noticed that surname Lee was attested as 니(ni, nikola, nio), instead of 이 in Korea. Nobody has pointed this out before I intervened on April, 2019 including LoutK, KevinUp, Karaeng Matoaya, etc. By participating in the Korean entries, I can provide to you guys information that these two Koreans don't want you guys to know. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT, neither LoutK nor I were even active on April 2019.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support a short temporarily block of User:B2V22BHARAT. We have seen enough evidence to merit it. I hope he will come back with the changed attitude. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @LoutK. You pointed out that there isn't a Korean administrator here. Karaeng has been active for four years, is an autopatroller, and does good work, you've said. Why not nominate Karaeng Matoaya to become an admin? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius, I’m underqualified to be an admin and don’t want to be one, but thanks for the sentiment. I think Suzukaze-c would make a better admin but I believe they’ve also declined.—Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't have such a thing as "LANGUAGE NAME" administrator at the English Wiktionary. It's just that we know who the go-to person is or someone with authority in language questions but it always changes, depending on activity and interests and desire to engage and may be different on the type of question and responses (or edits) expected. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I see where "Korean administrator" can be ambiguous. I actually meant an actual ethnic Korean / Korean national / Korean native speaker who's an administrator. I didn't have in mind an administrator with authority only in the Korean area; that doesn't exist. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, a short term or a long term block is neither here nor there, B2V22BHARAT has proven again and again even here in this discussion that they are not going to cool down and behave civilly. Give them a chance to cool down, but I’m afraid we’ll have to address this issue soon again.--Robbie SWE (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion has gone quite long, I have blocked @B2V22BHARAT for a week following @Benwing's suggestion. We'll see what things are like after that week. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius: Apologies for not responding to you earlier. I am incredibly busy in real life right now but wanted to ensure something was done here. I'd really like to be as positive as possible and assume good faith generally. I've tried to do that with our several South Asian editors at one point or another, and I can attest even those who started out with low-quality edits now do valuable work since they're acting in good faith and willing to learn. I just don't see that kind of possibility in B2V22BHARAT given the stalkerish behaviour, one-year track record, and as we can see on this page zero ability to admit to even a single fault (instead, they point out one or two minor, later rectified, things Kaerang has gotten wrong, with some personal insults to boot). I fear one week is not going to be enough in this case, but I'd like to be fair which is why it's not an infinite block. Hope this explains my reasoning, I'm not one to take unilateral decisions. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: I'm afraid you may be right. I think if this happens again, we should consider blocking indefinitely. Benwing2 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not followed the drama as it unfolded, but the level of arrogance displayed in just this thread is such that the prospect of future productive contributions is dim. Please do not hesitate to block indefinitely to prevent wasting the time and draining the energy of good editors.  --Lambiam 21:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Module_talk:grc-pronunciation#anachronisms? Dngweh2s (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do communications from the WMF tend to sound as if we are being spoken to by the Ministry of Information?  --Lambiam 23:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zhnka, Aearthrise, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Castillerian and anyone else who might be interested in Demotic (the Egyptian kind, not Greek): I’ve recently been working on an About Demotic page to standardize our Demotic entries and transliteration and ran into a few places where I’m not sure of the best route to take. (Everything on that page should be taken as extremely provisional.)

• What should our policy be regarding dots (.) to separate morphemes? The standard in Demotic transliteration seems to be to use a dot before any suffixes that are regularly written after the determinative. This is the same rule we use for our Egyptian transliteration, but note that using the same rule produces significantly different results in Demotic versus earlier Egyptian—it means that feminine and plural endings are separated by dots in Demotic, whereas they are kept with the word in Egyptian. A handful of authors like Černý don’t use dots this way, but the great majority seem to. I’m leaning in favor of using them this way, too, given that it seems to be nearly universal among Demotic scholars and is consistent with our rule for Egyptian (even if the resulting words look different).
• Same question regarding the oblique double hyphen (⸗) to separate suffix pronouns. We don’t use this in classical Egyptian (we just use a dot instead, following Allen) but we do use it in Coptic headword lines to indicate the pronominal state. I’m again leaning in favor of using it just because it seems most Demotic scholars do it this way, but in this case it is inconsistent with how we treat earlier Egyptian.
• Sorting out e vs. j vs. y vs. ꞽ vs. ꞽw vs. ʾ vs. …: There seem to be countless different ways to transliterate the characters , , and . Johnson transliterates them as e, ꞽ, and y, respectively. Erichsen has them as ꞽw, ꞽ, and j instead. The Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae sort of follows Erichsen, with iw, i, and j. Černý has ꞽ, ꞽ, and y. Griffith has e, ʾ, and y. I would suggest we go with a system like Johnson’s, which seems to be popular in modern publications, albeit with j instead of ꞽ for two reasons: (1) it’s consistent with our classical Egyptian transliteration, and less importantly (2) ꞽ is newly encoded in Unicode and has virtually no font support.

Thoughts? Or other suggestions/issues to address? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any experience in Demotic, so I abstain on all points. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, Profes.I. --{{victar|talk}} 21:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 05:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just changed goodwin from English to Scots because the evidence on the page supported it as Scots and it didn't appear in the English dictionaries I checked. But it also didn't appear in the Scots dictionary I checked (dsl.ac.uk). Likely it would fail RFV if anybody asked. Possibly it was a one-off respelling of guid wean that's never been seen again. Does the three durable uses rule apply to Scots, which is primarily oral? Are there other places one might look for verification? (I normally don't edit Scots for fear of repeating the Scots Wikipedia fiasco, but this was a word that called out for attention.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Scots is an LDL, so one citation is sufficient. It can even be a mention rather than a use if it comes from a source that the Scots editing community here agrees is reliable, such a widely used and respected dictionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the vote or policy statement that Scots is LDL? I looked at Wiktionary:About Scots and didn't see anything useful. There doesn't seem to be a Scots editing community. One user claiming sco-3 or better has edited a Scots entry in the past 18 months. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Just checked and it's actually listed as a WT:WDL, which I find very suprising. (All languages not listed as a WDL are LDL by definition, I think.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think after the WP scandal, we may agree that Scots shouldn't be a WDL. Thadh (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I would support making Scots a LDL. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That reminds me, somebody should review Special:Contributions/AmaryllisGardener. I could bring the edits into conformance with the dictionary, when they are in the dictionary, but not with Scots as she is spoke. For example, I justed edited solit. That is the lemma form on Wiktionary, but DSL says it is a variant spelling of solid. I don't know which I would see or hear more if I went to Scotland. If we had an active editing community the native speakers could help, but all we have is a dictionary or two and a sparse written record. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I would support making Scots a LDL, as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#Untrustworthy Scots entries, which may be affected by the discussion here. Most of those won't have a single cite, I expect. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum The sorry state of Scots entries and the almost total lack of knowledgeable Scots editors, along with the difficulty in drawing a line between Scots and Northern English, is why I suggested awhile ago merging Scots and English entries, similar to what we have done with Chinese. Someone actually created a vote to do this but it failed because too many people were affronted and thought it was all an evil plot to deny the linguistic distinctiveness of Scots. It might be time to revisit this issue, this time hopefully with fewer passions flaring. Benwing2 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It failed because people disagreed with merging two distinct languages together, and suggesting it failed because its opponents were irrational is hardly the way to start the discussion with fewer passions flaring.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see three users above who explicitly support marking Scots a LDL (Thadh, LBD, and Prosfilaes) and two who seem to support that (Mahagaja and Mnemosientje, who are surprised it's not one). Are there any objections to making Scots a LDL? We've edited WDL to remove a few languages based on Beer Parlour consensuses before, so we can remove Scots too if there's consensus for that here, but I want to allow time for any objections. One possible concern is that in the wake of the Wikipedia scandal referred to above, it came out that some Scots resources we might've cited to create LDL entries were influenced by the made-up Wikipedia vocabulary and spellings. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  In my opinion one use or one mention is too lax. We might be tolerant of spelling variation and we might make some uses more equal than others. Yirdquauk was arbitrarily chose as the Scots word for earthquake. I am inclined to keep it because the one use I found is in a Bible translation. The "real" Scots word appears to be earthquake as in English with yirthquake and yearthquawk mentioned in DSL without citation. I propose as interim rules until some native speakers show up:

  1. A word is attested if it appears once in a major work of Scots literature (e.g. Robert Burns, the Lorimer Bible) published before 1950 or any work published before 1700 (labeled as Middle Scots).
  2. Otherwise, a word is attested by two uses combining durable citations in Wiktionary and citations in Dictionary of the Scots Language; it is not necessary to copy the DSL uses to Wiktionary as long as DSL is linked. Possibly add scots-online.org which looks credible but so does Scots Wikipedia.
  3. An alternate spelling or inflected form may be listed as a red link if it is mentioned once in DSL. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  I would support this. I think we should be more flexible with citation criteria than just "WDL" and "LDL", since there are a broad range of languages with unique situations. A major work or two-citation criterion makes sense for Scots, I think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Take a look at User:Vox Sciurorum/Scots CFI draft, which I propose to replace most of Wiktionary:About Scots. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Such sure statement that all Burns' works are Scots or are enough to satisfy an RFV troubles me: Scots Wha Hae's WP article states that the lyrics are written in something of a pidgin of Scots and English, mixing the two languages together. I'm sure some more uses of this could be found throughout his works, as confirmed by the WP article: "He is the best known of the poets who have written in the Scots language, although much of his writing is in English and a light Scots dialect". Thadh (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  I can't reliably tell the difference between an English dialect and Scots. Got any suggestions for identifying works as genuine Scots? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  I can't either (especially since Scots and English form a continuum), neither am I sure anyone can with all certainty, but I wanted to bring up this problem. I think Chuck (below) summed the problem up quite nicely. Thadh (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) We have to be extremely careful, since modern Scots has been in a state of diglossia with English for most of its history: certain registers of the language have been displaced by English (e.g., when education is only in English, Scots tends to be perceived as uneducated), and writers have tended to mix in English to reach a wider audience, knowing that Scots speakers are also English speakers and will understand them. Now that people are trying to pull Scots away from diglossia, there's always the temptation for Scots speakers to make up terms on the fly in fields where Scots speakers have previously only used English to discuss them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a warning about Internet Scots to Wiktionary:About Scots. I have not added anything about CFI because we don't have strong support for a specific proposal. The only challenged words with limited attestation are sense 2 of duin (supported by two uses in DSL) and beeld (supported by one use in DSL with a note "The extension of meaning to image is not elsewhere recorded"). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear colleague,

It has been a while! I have been quite active this last year, but I made less efforts for the inter-project network, so I posted less often here. Well, you can have a look at the Tremendous Wiktionary User Group Annual Report 2020 and if you have any idea on ways to reinforce our cooperation, I'll be glad to hear them!

Anyways, I am here to inform you of a brand new initiative that include Wiktionarians for 2021, a Lingualibrist in Residence!

Sebleouf, WikiLucas00 and myself made a plan for a residence dedicated to Lingua Libre!

Lingua Libre is a growing project supported by Wikimédia France, which aims to record pronunciations and signs online. The interface reached a solid v. 2 in 2020 and allows easy massive recording, the uploading of the files to Wikimedia Commons, and a bot integrates the files to a bunch of Wiktionaries.

From May to August 2021, WikiLucas plans to implement suggested tasks, in order to facilitate individual collection and recording-workshops, and will explore solutions for patrolling new recordings.

This kind of residence are great to improve the quality of our projects and to make it acknowledge by the cultural institutions. In 2020, we impulsed the first Wiktionarian in Residence for French Wiktionary, in 2021 for Lingua Libre, what can we imagine for 2022? Something for Wiktionaries in general? Something dedicated to English Wiktionary? That's up to you! I may not impulse such a project every years, to be honest, but I'll be glad to help if you come up with some plans for your project! Noé 08:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We have had some quality problems with LinguaLibre recordings at en.wikt, leading to the creation of a whitelist, which means that bots will not add most LL audio unless it is explicitly approved. Perhaps the Lingualibrist in residence might be interested in a discussion with the en.wikt community about how to ensure a more reliable resource. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am indeed interested in this matter. Do you remember the main issues you encountered? Could you share the link to the discussion leading to the whitelist creation? We will try to build a solution in order to spot common audio problems before they are integrated in wikis. — WikiLucas (🖋️) 22:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@WikiLucas00: I don't remember where this was discussed, but some LinguaLibre users self-reported as native speakers when this clearly was not the case, leading to a loss of confidence in unsupervised bot-added LL content. – Jberkel 13:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jberkel, WikiLucas00: I've gathered relevant discussions here. Here's where it was discussed for the first time, I think. 2A02:2788:A4:205:4172:C92D:3A2E:3CF 14:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware, of course, that it would be a very large-scale change to actually implement, but how do people feel in principle about changing the "Etymology" heading in articles to "Origin"? I feel that "Origin" is a more inviting and user-friendly word, especially for a section that is, in many cases, almost the first thing that users see when they look up a word. Some people might think "Etymology ... dunno anything about that ... it sounds complicated so let's click away" and yet "Origin ... oh I wonder what the origin of this word is ... that might be interesting to find out". Mihia (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Etymology is the standard word here. Origin feels like the dictionary has been deliberately dumbed down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I am generally opposed to excising words from our dictionary that every educated person should be expected to know. Yes, it might make our dictionary more usable, but I think it's a problem that when people see a word they don't know, they get turned off instead of looking it up. On an online dictionary, it's ridiculously simple to figure out what it means. You either look at what is happening in the section, or you copy-paste the word into the search bar. I think it's somewhat insulting to those who are better educated and/or less lazy to avoid a standard word simply because some people can't be arsed to look it up. More generally, I also think a society that continually appeals to the lowest common denominator instead of encouraging people to aim higher is a society that is preparing itself for decline. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Related alternative suggestion: Templatize our headings.

I've noticed that various other Wiktionaries, like the French or Japanese, make use of templates even in the ==various heading levels==. This allows for much easier changes in style and heading text, and I'm surprised (in retrospect) that we don't do that here.

Here's the FR Wikt heading structure for their entry at fr:hôtel:

 == {{langue|fr}} ==
 === {{S|étymologie}} ===
 ...
 === {{S|nom|fr}} ===
 ...

And here's the JA Wikt heading structure for their entry at ja:ホテル:

 =={{jpn}}==
 ]
 ]
 ==={{noun}}===
 {{head|jpn|noun}}
 ...
 ===={{etym}}====
 {{etyl|eng|jpn}}:]
 
 ===={{pron|jpn}}====
 ...

If we were to use templates like this, it would be trivial to (say) turn the word "Etymology" in the ===Etymology=== headings into a link, perhaps to our etymology entry, or to Appendix:Glossary#etymology, or some other appropriate place. I've often encountered unfamiliar terminology in various infrastructure-y places such as conjugation tables (what is illative, what is partitive, etc.), and thought that simply adding links for these labels would achieve an appreciable boost in our site usability.

Is there any strong opposition to templatizing the headings? If so, what is that opposition? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the memory requirements, this sounds like a proposal that we could only reasonably consider if we implement per-language pages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Booo. --{{victar|talk}} 07:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I disprefer it because of the dumbing down and the habituation – never change a running system. Fay Freak (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO no. Etymology is a well-known term and more specific than "origin" (which might mean "where we found our citations" or something). We could consider moving it so it isn't the first thing on the page though; I'd prefer definitions first, as would many users, no doubt. Equinox ◑ 16:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally like the current style far better than that of ru.wikt or any other project where the definition goes first. Moreover, given that a great amount of terms have multiple etymologies, I'm not sure how to implement this without having to list the etymology of every single definition. Thadh (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Only a small minority of pages which have any etymology section(s) have multiple etymology sections within one language section, at least for most languages including English (though I'd be interested to know how different the ratio is for Chinese, Japanese, or Arabic, which tend to have a lot more etymology sections on at least some pages). I used to prefer the ety-at-the-top format but have come to support putting definitions higher, like other dictionaries do, since definitions seem to be the most sought-after content. One idea for handling entries with multiple etymology sections is to allow etymology to go first in those, the same way "Alternative forms" is allowed to go either above or below definitions. Etymologies below the definitions section would not have to be below every single definition, just like "Related terms" and "derived terms" don't. - -sche (discuss) 19:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In theory, we could keep the existing etymology splits (Ety 1, Ety 2, etc.) but represent them differently, e.g. show each Ety section with the ety at the bottom of that section and the def at the top (and horizontal line separators instead of the actual ETYMOLOGY caption). Equinox ◑ 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. PUC – 21:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am neutral. But I wonder if a better place for your idea is simple.wiktionary.org. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In templates creating Japanese rubies, percent signs (%) are used to separate rubies above a word. For example:

{{ja-r|自殺|じさつ}} → 自殺(じさつ) (jisatsu)

{{ja-r|自%殺|じ%さつ}} → 自(じ)殺(さつ) (jisatsu)

Previously, the percent signs in the kanji string and the kana string must equal in number. However, when rubies were introduced to the header templates like t:ja-noun, we found it difficult to insert percent signs to the kanji strings, because they are usually directly taken from the page title. Thus I made a "default separator" feature, which adds percent signs to the kanji strings automatically if the kana string contains percent signs but the kanji string does not.

{{ja-r|自殺|じ%さつ}} → {{ja-r|自殺|じ%さつ}}

Recently I noticed that default separators are used frequently outside header templates, which is not what they have been originally intended for. Also, Japanese header templates now use another method to divide rubies and in most cases do not need percent signs any more. So I am wondering whether we should keep this feature, and if so whether we should limit its usage to the header templates, perhaps in order to enforce consistency.

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233): -- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001: I thought it was a feature that was introduced for all templates that use Japanese ruby, and thought that it’d be nice to not need to specify the percent signs in {{CJKV}}. If it’s going to be removed, I’d be okay with it. It’s just that I thought this made things a little easier. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No opinion as I personally rarely bother. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think user time should not be wasted on inserting the "%" sign in any occurrences. Support limiting the usage to the headword, if it's even required there. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I guess you may have misunderstood me. I am talking about "default separators" which actually save users' time by allowing them to omit some of the "%" signs. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001: Yes, I may have. No strong opinion but if the default separator works flawlessly, why not? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Geographyinitiative is adding the following images to Chinese entries:

1. File:樂觀_Optimism.jpg for 樂觀／乐观 (lèguān, “optimism”)
2. File:Sin_Sheng_Building_新生大樓.jpg for 新生 (xīnshēng, “new student”)
3. File:毋忘在莒_28954753564_a8f7498608_o.jpg for 毋忘在莒 (wúwàngzàijǔ, “don't forget to recover the lost territory (proverb)”)
4. File:莒光_29039943893_0a31ae9087_o.jpg for 莒光 (jǔguāng, “(place name)”)
5. File:軍令如山_35171818344_58791d064e_o.jpg for 軍令如山／军令如山 (jūnlìngrúshān, “military orders cannot be changed (proverb)”)
6. File:忠誠門_29599983525_262ec5a6c6_o.jpg for 勤勞／勤劳 (qínláo, “hardworking”)
7. File:Xiyin_29499934931_02da15c317_o_(1).jpg for 人定勝天／人定胜天 (réndìngshèngtiān, “Man's determination will triumph over nature (proverb)”)
8. File:學校_SCHOOL_20191126_161501.jpg for 學校／学校 (xuéxiào, “school”)
9. File:East_Campus_IMG_20141014_091916.jpg for 誓詞／誓词 (shìcí, “oath”) note in this picture the 誓詞 is the small text written under the CPC flag, not that big slogan above
10. File:East_Campus_IMG_20141003_140356.jpg for 棟樑／栋梁 (dòngliáng, “mainstay”)

Please give your opinion on whether each of them should remain in the entry.

My opinion:

All of them except the 誓詞 one, are merely signs or banners with the Chinese words printed on them. How do they help to illustrate the concept behind those words to the readers? If they are meant just to show how the words are written, aren't the page titles above, the header templates and all other texts enough? Especially this one: File:學校_SCHOOL_20191126_161501.jpg I really don't understand why not just use the picture of an actual school as we have so many pictures of this kind. These pictures should be all removed.

The 誓詞 picture on the other hand, has too many unnecessary details. A non-native Chinese reader may even fail to tell which part of the picture "誓詞" is. This picture should be at least cropped, if not removed. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that none of these are good illustrations and that they should all be removed. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Delete. The images merely show how the compounds appear in print but do not actually illustrate the meaning of the compounds. RcAlex36 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As above. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Leave the images out. If we had a policy for illustrations of different fonts or writing styles one or two might be kept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If I recall, this "tradition" has been started (or popularized) by @Hippietrail, who has been taking pictures of Chinese words on signs and putting them in the entries. I don't think these are useful in general and they should probably be removed, as argued above. The only case that it would make sense is if there are variants that aren't handled well with Unicode unification, which generally only makes sense for single character entries. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging other Chinese editors: @Atitarev, Tooironic, Mar vin kaiser, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, Michael Ly. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say remove them. They don't help in explaining what the terms are. The dog2 (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, images of words in use count as cites. For another, their vividness in all the surrounding white space serves as a mnemonic device. If you look up a word and beside the definition you also find a picture of it in a real-life context you are more likely to remember the word next time you encounter it. This is the purpose, not “to illustrate” as with pictures depicting a thing, which last is also a possible purpose but for abstracter lexemes one naturally aims towards such devices. Fay Freak (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep Fay Freak is making the argument I should be making.

(1) As Fay Freak has written, 'images of words in use count as cites'.

(2) As Fay Freak has written, 'their vividness in all the surrounding white space serves as a mnemonic device. If you look up a word and beside the definition you also find a picture of it in a real-life context you are more likely to remember the word next time you encounter it'.

It's hard to make arguments that work for all the images at once, and that's why this tactic is being used to remove all images at once. I'm in a catch-22 because if I respond specifically on all images here, then I would write way too much. Hence no active defense (to keep these images) is actually allowed, and the goal is the drive the herd of users into a "just delete it and whatever" mindset. There is apparently no formal dispute resolution forum on Wiktionary, which is dangerous.

Here's my argument for one of the images which should show that we shouldn't be over-hasty here:

On the 棟樑／栋梁 (dòngliáng, “mainstay”) page, the image is a red banner with the words "今日理工学子 明日国家栋梁". This image functions both as a citation from real life of the usage of this word, and as a visually interesting aid for the reader helping them see how the word is used in real-life context. (Even if you don't agree with is argument right now, I think you can see it is a potentially strong argument.)

In my mind keeping the "今日理工学子 明日国家栋梁" image is definitely consistent with a user-friendly dictionary. This is literally an example sentence, but instead of being in the drop-down examples, it has a visual context. If your imagination for what example usages on Wiktionary can be is limited to black and white sentences in a drop-down, then yes, you are right- this should be deleted. But if you believe in seeing colors and showing people these words "where they live", that is, making it interesting for the visually-stimulated people by showing people Chinese characters in China, then I say this image definitely has a potentially valid argument for being kept.

In my view, 恨国党非蠢即坏's efforts amount to a wholesale denial that there are readers that learn and grow based on seeing images like this. This image is not about rational attainment of meaning in the minds of the readers- it is about "seeing" how a word is used in real-life. The readers are IMMENSELY helped by seeing "今日理工学子 明日国家栋梁" on a red banner in China. By this image, the readers are familiarized with the word outside of books, newspapers and youtube clips which are the mainstay of the examples sections

@恨国党非蠢即坏, Surjection, Suzukaze-c, Octahedron80, Hippietrail, The dog2, Justinrleung, Vox Sciurorum, RcAlex36, Fay Freak Based on my above argument, can you see that it is a mistake to delete these images wholesale, and that there is at least a possibility that each image should be considered individually? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The images do not help illustrate the definition, ergo they do not belong in the entry. Them counting as cites is not significant, nor is their purpose as a "mnemonic device". You pinging everyone else who has already posted their opinion to point their attention to a wall of text comes across as bludgeoning to me. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Surjection "The images do not help illustrate the definition" Did you read the argument concerning the image above, or are you just trying to delete "the images"? This is the exact problem I'm talking about- we are throwing the images together as if they are all the same, and no defense is actually allowed for any one image. If I had written more, it would just be called bludgeoning to a greater degree. I had to get the other user's attention because this will be a major miscarriage if it goes through. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is already bludgeoning. You are arguing against every single point, with your goal clearly being to convince everyone else that they are wrong. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate on my "not significant" part:

* According to the CFI, these images do not even count as cites, as they must be in "permanently recorded media". A Commons upload made by the user adding the terms is not "permanently recorded media".

* Mnemonic device: literally anything would count as a mnemonic device. Having a photo that shows "real-life usage" of a term serves no purpose that an usage example would not do without taking a considerable amount of additional space from the page. Thus, for me, these images are not "relevant" and thus should not be included, as WT:ELE says that entries can contain "relevant images".

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(I will put aside the argument against me making arguments for my position for the moment.) "without taking a considerable amount of additional space from the page" Wiktionary is an internet site; we can take as much or as little space as is needed. This is so messy my friends- I can't tell which argument is for this specific image and for the images generally. I urge you all not to be hasty. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Mobile users are a thing. Headings can be collapsed, images cannot. Since the images only serve to illustrate the word in use, they only end up taking more space than an usage example or cite (both of which can be collapsed, too!) would. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

（If I am allowed to respond-- if not, ignore this.) Yes, mobile users are a thing. Images are great for someone that is using their phone- you can click on the image and see it up close. They can download the example image on their phone and share the image with someone they are talking to faster than they can copy-paste an example sentence from a drop down. The image doesn't disrupt the page at all as far as I know. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And unlike with an image, with the text, someone can copy the other words and look them up on Wiktionary too. The image is worse in that aspect and really in basically every aspect I can think of. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Caption. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Surjection: Commons uploads by users are permanently recorded media. Commons is our way to make things durable, as also Wikisource, and their disappearing would only arise together with that of Wiktionary itself, while individual uploads shouldn’t disappear either because the licences are irrevocable; even if there are circumstances when users can replace or delete files it is a preposterous conspiracy theory to suggest that there would be any considerable likelihood of editors systematically citing words and then have their pictures deleted. “Permanently recorded media” does not mean “nothing digital”. It does not mean either “undestroyable”. We can also cite illegal books. Fay Freak (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I generally oppose inserting an image of the word started by Hippietrail just for the sake of inserting it. It seems the idea of inserting an image is not supported by one of our main Thai editors - User:Octahedron80 either. Compare this revision with the image removed in diff. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: What will you think if I print a vocabulary card set of my own, photo each card and post them in all entries on Wiktionary? Does that make a great "mnemonic device"? 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 恨国党非蠢即坏. Wiktionary isn't a vocabulary building site. One can always make their own flashcards if they want to remember vocabulary. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, if we allow these pictures to remain, any Tom, Dick or Voldemort can do that too. Seriously, there will be no end to this and Wiktionary will soon become Wikialbum. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36 If a dictionary is not for vocabulary building, then why is the person looking in the dictionary? There are three options: looking in a dictionary to increase, reduce, or keep one's vocabulary at the same level it was. Using a dictionary by definition means you are trying to increase your understanding or expand your understanding in some way. (If I can be allowed to respond- please let me know if you will allow any further replies if you reply to this.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: It wouldn’t work because it wouldn’t have the real-life context (not a sufficiently discernible amount thereof). And of course we can also say that it shouldn’t be too easy, and images must not be too bad in general, for whichever purpose. No you all call that purpose weak but at least I do understand it. Geographyinitiative strives to give people an impression of “I was there”, to further accepted purposes of the dictionary. People here are supposing too much their favorite purpose of image deployment, or what a “relevant image” is (which is an unfilled criterion). Fay Freak (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: The term "sufficiently discernible amount" is too vague and actually that is just where we differ: you defined signboards and banners as "a sufficiently discernible amount of real-life context", while I do not. In my eyes they are just as non-"real-life context" as flashcards. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: One also needs a good screen to distinguish good photography from bad photography. Maybe your screen is too low-end for there to be a difference to you. I agree it wouldn’t be there for me either on a phone screen. But on an 26-inch true-color screen and broadband internet we do not resent a good dose of eye candy. Fay Freak (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: "Eye candy"? What are you talking about? Are you OK? 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: See? If you really want to appreciate some "eye candy" canteen building or mother nature shown in those pictures, you can use your own CSS to realise it. You really don't need to make all of us enjoy that together with you. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: That’s beside the point, because it is not about the eye candy per se, but owing to the lexical connection to be strengthened by pictures. You try to depict these pictures as random but certainly they aren’t, otherwise people would already have shown pictures of flashcards in entries.

Currently we have insufficient templatization of image invocations to apply CSS varyingly according to the end users’ display equipments. Fay Freak (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Of course that’s beside the point, especially when you are even trying to lead the topic further away by continuing talking about your "end users’ display equipments" nonsense. Hope you had fun. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We can argue all day about "is it a good image?" for individual images, and I would be happy to do that. In fact I "lost" one discussion where 恨国党非蠢即坏 replaced an image I had included on 並 with a new one. That's good, dictionary-creating conversation. The question is, is there an existing consensus or belief that 恨国党非蠢即坏 is enforcing that excludes "all these images" or any one of these images in particular? I am saying that there wasn't such a consensus when the images were posted and that 恨国党非蠢即坏's wholesale reverts of those images were damaging to the Wiktionary since no such consensus existed when the user did those reverts. If there is a consensus that "these images" should not appear, then a specific rule should be written or referenced. I would personally like to know why this hypothetical policy was not enforced sooner by an admin like justinrleung. Again, if there is a problem with individual images, of course I or other users can discuss that for those individual images. But just wholesale deletin' stuff without a specific "Wiktionary Policy" being referenced ain't the way to go. 恨国党非蠢即坏's attacks against me implying that I am Voldemort or that I am using Wiktionary as a travel blog are silly, but I've gotten used to the abuse on Wiktionary from other users and admins. I wish it would stop, but it just doesn't. Anyway, I'm just here to make a good quality dictionary of all words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care who was the victim in all this. I do not think definitions of Chinese words should ordinarily come with pictures of the words. I will not say never because I still don't have a font with biáng / 𰻝. I appreciate the illustration of the character at biángbiángmiàn / 𰻝𰻝面 (not the animated one on the single character page because animation is annoying). The picture of the noodles themselves is also useful. I have seen a clear plastic package of such noodles with the biáng character printed on it. That would have been a useful illustration too, showing the character being used to label the thing. It's not as good as what we have now, but it would be better than nothing. But putting a picture of the word 松鼠 on the page 松鼠 (sōngshǔ, “squirrel”) would not be productive. Picture of a squirrel or nothing. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum I am a victim for sure. It's sad we don't care about protecting Wiktionary users, but I'm just letting us know what's going on here. It's terrible my friends- it's terrible. The worst part is, if I respond even in the littlest bit, my counter-response will be leveraged against me for a ban on me permanently, so all I can do is just point out the abuse and hope that we will come to our senses and start caring one day.

In your example: I agree that an image of the characters 松鼠 alone gets us nowhere in explaining something to the readers. But what if that image came with a visual context, like a sentence or a special poster at a zoo? "These images" (the above ones) are not black and white typeface images of the words in question, like your hypothetical implies. They provide a window into the life of these words where they are used in the culture in question. That is so valuable my friends. Again, individual images can be weighed for their merits just like some example sentences are crap. (If I am allowed to make any further responses to your posts Vox, please let me know if you give a response. I am trying to avoid charges of bludgeoning while actively defending my position.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Delete, or if necessary, move to the citations page. These don't help readers in any way, except as examples of how the term is used. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(Quick aside: This comment is too good to believe- the user writes "These don't help readers in any way, except as examples of how the term is used. " (my emphasis). This concedes the exact point I make to defend the images but then says to delete the images anyway.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That just shows how unpersuasive the point is. I don't think anyone is disputing that there's some value, but none of the delete voters thinks it's worth taking up space in entries (among other drawbacks) for such a minuscule benefit. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Ok, now we're talking sensibly. Now we're talking about situations where an example image provides benefit to the readers and not. Doesn't it seem reasonable to discuss the benefit question relative to each image? Which image doesn't provide the requisite benefit? Could it be improved? That's the type of discussion I'm talking about, not wholesale deletion nonsense. If 恨国党非蠢即坏 or anyone wants to discuss a specific image or a specific principle, then let's do that. Some images will probably be saved, some will be modified (like 並) and some will be deleted. If we actually do the hard work rather than saying "immadeletethisshitbro" there could be an improvement not only to the guidelines for Wiktionary image usage policy, but also an improvement to these articles for the readers. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No, people are saying that images of this sort are categorically not worth it. There's really no difference between these images regarding the issue in question, and I sincerely doubt that there's any significant difference in their merit for any of the entries. You seem to be always looking for the magic wording that will bend people's minds to your way of thinking, regardless of what they thought before. It doesn't work that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed part of my post so as not to be too categorical, but perhaps I should have left it in, since it would have made my intent clearer. I think they are useful as examples only when it is difficult to find other citations. They are not useful as images, and so they should not be included in the main entry, since they serve as usage examples or citations rather than as illustrations. In other words, they fail to do what images are supposed to do, so they shouldn't be taking the place of images in an entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just out of interest, where exactly is the Wiktionary rule that the only criteria for images to be included is that "How do they help to illustrate the concept behind those words to the readers"? When was the rule instated and who are its authors? It's interesting to hear that this is a dictionary of concepts rather than a dictionary of words.

  The current rule is at Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Images. Apparently there is a disagreement over the word "relevant". The last sentence reads "Further constraints may apply on a case-by-case basis, as decided by editors." The editors are here applying further constraints. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• The images that annoy me are the ones in translation entries where the image is of a culturally English language instance that patently does not apply to the culture of the language of the translation. Or when the English word and translation language word do not map 1:1 and though the picture may be very typical for what the English word covers it would be at the fringe of what the word in the translation language covers and not typical at all. — hippietrail (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove them, for the same reasons everyone else has given. I would make exceptions for images that are necessary to meet WT:ATTEST i.e. there are no text citations that could replace them or the text (i.e. typed up) citations would just be transcriptions of the images, or images that are necessary because the word or character depicted cannot be typed-up correctly, e.g. because Unicode has not encoded it. But File:軍令如山 35171818344 58791d064e o.jpg is useless, and something like File:East Campus IMG 20141014 091916.jpg, where there is a lot of more prominent text and then the word actually being "depicted" is in small print you have to hunt to find, is worse than useless. If the even smaller text beneath 誓詞 in the latter picture is an oath, then perhaps the picture could be cropped to become a picture of an oath which happened to also include the headword 誓詞, but the picture as it stands is random visual noise. - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if the complexity of Chinese writing structure justifies these pictures in some way (?) but I would remove on sight any image in an English entry that was merely a picture of the word and did not illustrate the referent. Equinox ◑ 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of the image on the exit page? The image does not illustrate the referent (Def 2: "A way out."/"An opening or passage through which one can go from inside a place (such as a building, a room, or a vehicle) to the outside; an egress.") The principle you think you would apply is more strict that the real more nuanced principle you actually do apply, because I guarantee you will not delete this exit image despite the fact that the image does not illustrate the referent directly. There is always a school sign when there's a school; there's always an exit sign when there's an exit.

To engage on another interesting point here- it's not that Chinese writing structure is complex, but that English speakers do not generally treat English words and phrases as works of art that are displayed in gigantic or artistic fonts in public billboards. It is a fact that Chinese characters are treated differently than English words are treated. That's a part of that cultural system that should not be ignored by Wiktionary.

Like I said above, it is VERY hard to argue for every one of the ten images above at once. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: "Exit" is an almost unique exception because if you ask someone to draw an exit they will draw it with a sign (otherwise it would just ambiguously be a picture of a door). The exit sign, like the no-entry symbol, has iconic significance. That's not the case with other words seen on signs. And I would much prefer the picture to be the non-textual exit sign that shows a stick figure running towards a rectangle with an arrow. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The point is "I would remove on sight any image in an English entry that was merely a picture of the word and did not illustrate the referent." was not your actual practice. That's what I'm telling you man. There are four-character phrases that are used throughout the Chinese character using world on rocks and signs in a way that may be iconic or iconic-like. Also, there are banners using words that may be useful to readers too. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It does at least somewhat illustrate the referent because it is also a picture of a sign on a real exit door. Your "school" sign isn't actually on or at a school, merely directing somebody to a school some significant distance away. That's as bad as just having a photo of a book page with the word "school" in a sentence. Equinox ◑ 11:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said in response to the initial reverts by 恨国党非蠢即坏, I recommend splitting up this discussion into discussion on individual images and Wiktionary Policy principles that apply to specific images. What's the rush? Gotta hurry to delete 'em, right? I recommend due consideration and analysis of specifics. The discussion will have to break down into specific discussions about whether the specific rule found in Wiktionary Policy/practices etc. applies to specific images in this list. Let's just go ahead and skip ahead to that part. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place for rules lawyering. Other editors agree that the images are not useful. In the event of a conflict between consensus and an interpretation of the rules, consensus wins. If you would like us to formally add a rule, "Geographyinitiative may not add images" we could do that. They do that sort of thing on Wikipedia. I will start another thread to discuss adding a sentence to the entry layout rules stating that pictures of words are not normally suitable images. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence of course and I respectfully request you not be rude to me. Treat me like a person if at all possible. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Re splitting this into discussions of individual images: I kind of lament that we can't do that; it's possible that if there were e.g. a beautiful calligraphic carving of "Man's determination will triumph over nature" into the side of a mountain in the style of File:Wuwangzaiju.JPG (but with different text, obviously), showing man's determination (to carve) triumphing over nature, that could be worth keeping. But because it seems like low-quality images would continue to be pushed even after individual ones were removed following case-by-case discussions (possibly due to a good faith inability to generalize / understand what kind of images are low quality / low utility), therefore it seems like a general rule needs to be the starting place. - -sche (discuss) 12:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete, I've seen these images in context and they add very little. The only exceptions would be standard road signs/official signs that are widely recognized to symbolize the word, such as the school or exit sign. However, even if these cases, I'd still prefer to have a primary image to illustrate the concept and then these signs as a secondary illustration of the specific signage used by a particular region/country/etc. Languageseeker (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Prompted by the long thread above, I propose to change the Images section of WT:EL to add another bullet:

• Pictures of words by themselves are not normally considered relevant. Exceptions include words with poor font support (such as 𰻞𰻞麵／𰻝𰻝面 (biángbiángmiàn)) and historic forms of Chinese words in etymology sections.

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should also make an exception for inscriptions in barely attested, extinct languages, e.g. at 𐌀𐌓𐌕𐌄𐌁𐌖𐌈𐌆. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a case I was thinking of myself in the other thread, and which I support making an exception for. I had tried to cover it in a general/oblique way by suggesting exceptions for images of inscriptions etc where the only text citations of the word are just typed-up transcriptions of those inscriptions, but just making a blanket exception for "barely attested, extinct languages" is a clearer and more direct way of making the right exception. (And avoids "well, all citations are just typed up from books that I could photograph instead...") (Bluntly, it's just more interesting to see an image of the spot where the only attested word in e.g. Khazar is written, than to see one of ten million pamphlets upon which one of a billion Chinese words is written.) - -sche (discuss) 11:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment I don't really have a specific opinion on how this rule should be written per se and I will follow it no matter what it is, but some of the points I took away from the above discussion is that "iconic significance" may be relevant. Cultural context has also been raised- there are not many gigantic four word posters in America, but they are everywhere in Chinese character culture areas. Another point: banners that use a word in a sentence also seem helpful to me as examples for readers to look at. A picture of a banner with a word in it shows the reader a context where the word is used and seen frequently in daily life outside books and youtube (the stuff we normally give in an example section). That gives you a context for how a word is used, and is therefore helpful for a reader. From the above discussion, it seems I would lean toward adding more images including the words in question than most people would, but that's a preference and I of course will follow the rules of Wiktionary and always have been following the rules (never wasn't following the rules- always was).

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: This idea belongs to wikipedia:Chinese culture, not here. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, it appeared from the above discussion that 'images of words in use count as cites' (if they are durably archived) and another user said "I think they are useful as examples only when it is difficult to find other citations." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor who started this discussion proposed the mock-rule that "Geographyinitiative may not add images". I have been accused of bludgeoning and wikilawyering in the above silly discussion. In order to protect my account from the implied danger associated with users slinging around these terms, I think I would just like to sit out this discussion and let the result happen between the other users. I look forward to a result here. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. But I want to suggest another exception: A long used and unique symbol representing a proper noun can be allowed. This mainly include some trademarks (if they merit an entry here) and some Arabic things like File:Allah3.svg 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the Arabic for Allah should be included as an image. SVG drawings of individual letters on the pages for those letters are fine with me; we have many of them already. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Support wholeheartedly. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• (Updated) Pictures of words by themselves are not normally considered relevant. Exceptions include words with poor font support (such as 𰻞𰻞麵／𰻝𰻝面 (biángbiángmiàn)), historic forms of Chinese words in etymology sections, and instances of rare or unique words (like an inscription on an ancient monument). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support the general principle of excluding images that merely show a term on a page, cover, ad, screen, poster, banner, sign, etc. The exceptions mentioned seem sensible to me as well. I hope that the wording that will appear in WT:EL will serve to eliminate endless litigation over both inclusion and exclusion of such images. I have always thought that the main function of images is to provide ostensive definitions of terms to supplement verbal definitions. Most other potential uses of images, eg, to provide attestation, are defensible under other sections of WT:EL or WT:CFI. Wording to consider might state that "Images are to provide ostensive definitions of terms. They may also be used to provide information for attestation and certain other purposes for which conventional text is insufficient." DCDuring (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not support

• under the above text proposal. WT:EL says entries “can contain relevant images”. It does not say that it must not contain images that are not relevant (under any further specification), so images that do not fit the definition can be included nonetheless. Learn legal writing! Also as “not normally” is as vague as thinkable, this does not solve anything either as it will be a continuous point of dispute. This is quite comical after one also complained that my criterion “sufficiently discernible amount of real-life context” is too vague.

  and for other proposals, I have not been ticked off sufficiently by any example in the above discussion concerning particular images to find regulatory action necessary. Those examples that I find unacceptable, as well as the strawmen examples other editors posted above, have only the chances of snowballs in hell; my “sufficiently discernible amount of real-life context” term is located at about the same includability threshold, or modestly above it. It may have ticked off other editors as ugly but as nobody has posted his specs to enable assessment whether the display devices are the sticking point rather than the general – end-user–abstracted – layout and noisiness I can only suppose my own subjective impression as the objective yardstick. Fay Freak (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(If nothing is decided here, I am preliminarily planning to read through all the comments and try to synthesize a potential rule or rules based on the opinions presented and then restart the discussion on a new wording for these rules in mid December). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A lot of ink has been spilled here! I am not in a position to summarize the information above and create a coherent rule. Any attempt I would make would be seen as controversial and lead to a ban for me. I would like to defer to the superiors on here to check out the above discussion and make any rule that can be made if you are interested. I never thought I was breaking any rules and I will comply with whatever rules may be made. Obviously the goal is to make the atmosphere necessary to make a dictionary, so too much tendentious discussion actually hurts the Wiktionary environment as a whole. I have realized that I make edits about very controversial material, so I have to take extra steps to prevent causing problems for the community of the dictionary. I can't treat these controversial topics so matter of factly- I need to actually go out of my way more than I do already to engage in community building. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)