Wiktionary:Votes/2013-11/Jyutping

• Voting on: a few proposals for how to handle Jyutping (a romanization system for Cantonese which differs from Yale romanization of Cantonese and from Cantonese Pinyin in ways which are outlined at w:Jyutping).
  • Proposal 1 (forbid Jyutping):

    Entries will not be allowed for Jyutping romanizations, except perhaps if they actually meet the CFI in and of themselves.

  • Proposal 2 (allow single syllables):

    Entries will be allowed for Jyutping romanizations of individual syllables, but these entries will have only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the traditional-character or simplified-character entries.

    The precise format of Jyutping entries (in particular the POS header) is subject to change based on discussion in the BP, but here is an example of how they might be formatted:

    ==Cantonese==
    
    ===Romanization===
    {{yue-jyut}}
    
    # {{jyutping reading of|菠}}

    . For another example, see co1.

    The logic behind including only single syllables (not romanizations of polysyllabic terms) is that this is also what is done for pinyin with tone numbers.

  • The status quo is somewhat unclear, though Wiktionary currently includes 698 entries for Jyutping syllables, in Category:Cantonese jyutping.
• Vote starts: 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 06:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/November#Jyutping_syllable

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2013-11/Jyutping

1. Support - Kill all transcription/transliteration entries as usual. Jyutping is just one of tens of transliteration schemes for Guangzhou Cantonese, and its usage cannot evenly be considered overwhelmingly dominant. Most Guangzhou Cantonese-learning material published in Mainland China uses a different system - w:Guangdong Romanization; the Hong Kong government also has a system - w:Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation; whereas a lot of English-language learning material uses a fourth system - w:Yale romanization of Cantonese. Why allow Jyutping specifically, not the other three equally important ones? Wyang (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

   The Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation "method" is not even standardized (see the wikipedia article for details). Why would Wiktionary include an "equally important" romanization method that isn't even standardized? Bumm13 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Support I wouldn't go radical and delete other romanisations too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support I'm for including transliterations if they are actually used by the native community, but so far no one has provided such proof in the case of Jyutping. -- Liliana • 07:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose --WikiTiki89 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bumm13 (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC) I don't really know, but I don't see any convincing reasoning for forbidding Jyutping. I certainly oppose indiscriminate removal of all transliterations of all transliteration schemes of all languages suggested above by one of the supporters of forbidding Jyutping. I find concerns about maintenance of Jyutping entries mentioned below on the page unfounded, since the Jyutping transliteration is planned to have "the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the traditional-character or simplified-character entries". For reference, there are now 723 entries in Category:Cantonese jyutping, many of which were created by User:Bumm13. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose I really hate positioning ourselves to decide on which transliterations we bestow our approval and which must be forever banished and cast into the flames. If it's in use then we should include it, period. DAVilla 09:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose I've found pinyin entries very useful, and if I had been learning Cantonese instead of Mandarin, I'm sure I would have found Jyutping entries equally useful. I also don't understand Atitarev's concern about maintenance - it doesn't seem like transliteration entries would require much maintenance. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Support --WikiTiki89 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Bumm13 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Per my opposing forbidding Jyutping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Support There are entire languages that are poorly maintained, but that's no reason to rule against them. If anyone should need this information, it is Wiktionary and not any of our sister projects where they should come to look. If anyone wants to provide this information, we should not turn them away. DAVilla 09:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Support —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Changing my vote to support, provided monosyllabic Cantonese entries are strictly only indices to character entries, following the suggested format. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose Wyang (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Monosyllabic entries may be useful for looking up characters but there's no one to maintain them. I would change my mind if we had a dedicated editor. Those few hundred entries we have, are too negligible for the amount of characters, not really useful.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

   If I understand correctly that Jyutping romanizations are facts, with no component of creative expression, then they are not subject to copyright, and it should be straightforward to create all the entries by bot. (It could either be a one-time bot that creates all the Jyutping entries, or it could be a bot that runs occasionally and creates Jyutping entries only when a character entry already exists.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

   I could do it myself, just have no interest any more and I don't see much enthusiasm in others. Each Jyutping reading or character can be checked in dictionaries, such as (select Jyutping in options), multiple readings (including Jyutping or Vietnamese) in Unihan database, e.g. 學@Unihan DB. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

   Not true; have you met Bumm13 (talk • contribs) yet? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

   I remembered some of his questions and one of his (incorrect) edit Jamesjiao criticised. I didn't pay attention to his activities, though. I may reconsider, there's still time. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

   And either way, not having enough entries is not a reason to not have any at all. --WikiTiki89 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

   It's the maintenance. Chinese character entries are badly neglected, we have no resources cleaning the huge mess of definitionless Mandarin single character entries, which are more exciting than Jyutping but nobody does them. After we have Jyutping, somebody may rightfully demand Cantonese definitions, which we don't have and unlikely to have in the near future. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose -- Liliana • 07:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Abstain --Vahag (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Abstain Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Entries for Jyutping romanizations of individual syllables are allowed; these entries will have only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to traditional-character or simplified-character entries.

By my ken, proposal 1 (to forbid Jyutping) fails; only 33% of voters (3 of 9 voters) supported it while 66% (6 of 9 voters) opposed it. Proposal 2 (to allow entries for Jyutping romanizations of single syllables) passes; 77% of voters (7 of 9 voters) supported it while 22% (2 of 9; notice that Anatoli initially voted 'oppose' but changed to 'support') opposed it. I drafted this vote at other users' behest and did not vote in it because I do not care if we allow Jyutping or not, so I consider myself as unbiased as anyone to judge the outcome, particularly because the numbers are so lopsided (the majority supporting single Jyutping syllables is more than three-fourths). However, if anyone does think I'm biased, it looks like a number of en.Wikt regulars did not participate in this vote at all and so could be asked to close it.
A discussion should now begin in the GP about how best (presumably by bot) to adapt our existing Jyutping entries to the format outlined above. - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me itemize it.

Proposal 1: fails with 3-6-2.

Proposal 2: passes with 7-2-2, which is 78%; abstainers are discounted as usual.

I don't think there is any question of your bias. And even people who voted can close the vote if the numbers as unequivocal, as they are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I don't think anyone can seriously think you are biased and cannot close the vote; it is obvious that you can close the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since proposal 1 failed, can someone please undertake delinking Jyutping in Cantonese templates, as in 北京 (bak1 ging1). We won't be having entries like bak1 ging1, so each Cantonese entry will have red links, except for monosyllabic, which are now allowed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no proposal to forbid entries like bak1 ging1, so they are not forbidden. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that "allow single syllables" was supposed to say "allow only single syllables". Does that mean we need a re-vote? --WikiTiki89 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not vote for allowing only single syllables; I voted on what the proposal says. I cannot find any place in the text of the vote that says that the romanization for multiple syllables shall be forbidden. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I asked: Does that mean we need a re-vote? --WikiTiki89 10:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this vote now it does seem confusing. I think we need a re-vote on multi-syllabic Jyutping. Note that Cantonese Jyutping uses tone numbers (often as superscripts - bak¹ ging¹), not tone marks, no capitalisation and all syllables are separated by a space. They are not words (neither is Pinyin) and they don't look like ones. As was mentioned earlier, Jyutping is one of the few systems for romanising Cantonese. One of the most common Cantonese dictionaries online using Jyutping: CantoDict. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)