Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Treatment of toneless pinyin syllables

• Voting on: Four possible alternatives for the general treatment of toneless pinyin syllables.

• Vote starts: 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 24:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vote created: bd2412 T 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#Toneless pinyin

  WT:BP#Toneless pinyin proposal

1. Support 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) User talk:123abc
2. Support A-cai 13:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Changing it seems like it would require a lot of unnecessary busy work.
   1. Not really, I can change them all with AWB in the span of perhaps half an hour. bd2412 T 00:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Some entries have far too much information in them, for what is essentially a misspelling, like wo or bei for instance.
2. Oppose Razorflame 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC) per Internoob.
3. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. # Abstain. Since I created the original format, I'm sure to be biased in evaluating it. Others have characterized this as a disambig page format, which I disagree with, but I see their point of view. bd2412 T 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support upon reflection of the options, this one is probably the best. Second choice after "nonstandard spelling" below. bd2412 T 23:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) user talk:123abc
3. Support —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Razorflame 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC) per BD2412.

1. Support —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I had started redoing them with this, but they are not really misspellings if they are used in an official capacity. bd2412 T 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) User talk:123abc
3. Oppose Razorflame 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC) per BD2412.
4. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support. An excellent option proposed by User:Mglovesfun. Probably the most accurate statement of what these are. bd2412 T 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 123abc
4. Support --Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Razorflame 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support —Ruakh_TALK 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Why not create a new template for these, like "Uninflected spelling of" or something more accurate? DAVilla 13:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea, but it's too late to add new options to the vote. I already added this one a few days after it opened, and at this point enough people have voted that voters may not bother to come back a third time to consider yet another option. bd2412 T 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Support Visviva 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC). No reason why a couple of trendy languages should get a special pass from the rules that apply to the rest of Wiktionary. -- Visviva 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
   • I was under the impression the rules that applied to the rest of Wiktionary were that attestable terms (which these are) should be included. The question is, really, how should they be included. bd2412 T 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Agree with Visviva here. All non-Roman languages are romanised occasionally. Let's concentrate on Chinese, not on toneless pinyin, romaji, and other types of romanisation. At best, disambiguation pages should be introduced - tai -> tāi, tái, tǎi and tài. Even pinyin with tones has limited value in a dictionary, which can support native scripts. Words like hanzi, pinyin, Putonghua, jiaozi, etc. are OK as English entries - Chinese derivations. --Anatoli 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Of course we should include them somehow, they are certainly attestable. bd2412 T 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Then it would be OK to RFV each of them? I've yet to see a Pinyin entry (toneless or otherwise) that was properly cited. -- Visviva 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Use in street signs constitutes clearly widespread use, by any reasonable definition of that standard. Do you wish to clog up RfV with hundreds of nominations, and give your fellow Wiktionarians a full-time job of hunting pictures of street signs and restaurant names? bd2412 T 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

   I now have found sufficient resources in print to be confident that any toneless pinyin syllable can be verified to exist, in accordance with the CFI. Here are some example works, , , , , , and toneless pinyin quotes:

   • 2007, Gunter R. Neeb, Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine, p. 165:

     Prescription Chuan Xiong (Ligusticum) 15 g, Ge Gen (Pueraria) 20 g, Dan Shen (Salvia Miltiorrhiza) 30 g, Wei Ling Xian (Clematis) 20 g, Hong Hua (Carthamus) 10 g, Luo Shi Teng (Trachelospermum) 15 g, Tu Si Zi (Cuscuta) 20 g, Jin Ying Zi (Rosa Laevigata) 15 g, Chong Wei Zi (Semen Leonuri Heterophylli) 30 g, Yi Yi Ren (Coix) 10 g, Niu Xi (Achyranthis Bidentata) 15 g, Zhen Zhu Mu (Concha Margaritaferae) 30 g, to be taken as a decoction, Wu Gong Fen (Scolopendra Subspinipes Pulvis) 1 g, and Quan Xie Fen (Buthus Pulvis) 1 g to be taken as powder.

   • 2007, Gunter R. Neeb, Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine, p. 260:

     This symptom was first described by Zhang Zhong-Jing in the 'Shang Han Za Bing Lun' (today's 'Jin Kui Yao Lüe') and treated with Ban Xia Hou Po Tang (Pinellia and Magnolia Decoction).

   • 2007, Gunter R. Neeb, Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine, p. 271:

     Classical categorization of prescriptions into strong prescriptions (Da Fang), mild prescriptions (Xiao Fang), quick prescriptions (Qi Fang), slow-working prescriptions (Huan Fang), even-numbered prescriptions (Qi Fang), odd-numbered prescriptions (Ou Fang) and compound prescriptions (Fu Fang) that combine two or more base formulas.

   • 2007, Gunter R. Neeb, Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine, p. 273:

     Bian Zheng Lun Zhi is derived from the holistic reflection and analysis of the four diagnostic methods (Si Zhen) and eight principles (Ba Gang)...

   • 2004, Michael Friedrich, Thomas O. Höllmann, Handschriften der Yao, p. 353:

     Yi lun zhu chu lai qing fa. Xian nian zhuan shi ming yu qing ge dao zheng shang qing tang dao ming tai qing li dao de ~ Xia jiang ~
     ...
     Zhuan tui shen xia lai nan chen si di zhu quan fen di gong shi Hang lu fen li ye.
     ...
     Yu huang zhen cheng zhi fa. Xian kou shi jiang shen cun bing ma.
     ...
     Yuan shi qu tie suo fu xie ren. Si ji jin xing zhong yi qian diao xie bian chu cheng le ji ye.
     ...
     Zao wan shen dou fei zhang jin si zhang fa ji ye. Ji xiang zhuan qu yue fu shi tai qing gong.
     ...
     Ji shi shuai zhen jun tong gou qu xiao xiong xing xing ji hao ye.

   • 2003, Bod-ljoṅs sman rtsis khaṅ. ʼJu byed tshan khag, Zang yi xiao hua xi tong ji bing zhen duan ji liao xiao ping ding biao zhun, cover.
   • 1997, Gail Hershatter, Dangerous Pleasures: prostitution and modernity in twentieth-century Shanghai, p. 406:

     Chang zhi xuan ju shi
     xie xie zheng zheng ye yaun zhi
     yi yang zipei yo udeng chai
     zong dai rong hua zhong mian su
     Bie cau jian shang ren chao chi
     kong qun jun zu xuan gao jia
     jue dai e mei ya zhong chi
     dan xi dong li feng gu leng
     he ren ken cai wai cai shi.

   • 1981, Laurence J. C. Ma, Edward W. Hanten, Urban Development in Modern China, p. 89:

     Guo wu yuan guan yu cheng xiang hua fen biao zhun de gui ding (Resolutions of the National Council on the Standards of Demarcation of Urban and Rural Places), Tong ji gong zuo tong xun, No. 12, 1955, p. 4.
     ...
     Nan lushi ye diao cha tuan bao gao shu (A Survey Report on Industries in Southwestern Guangdong), np, Guangdong sheng jian she ting, 1933.
     ...
     Hainan dao zhi (A Gazetteer of Hainan Island), n.p., n.d.

   • 1955, Zhenlin Chen, Ren ti xiao hua xi ji bing X xian zhen duan xue tu pu: Illustrations of X-ray diagnosis of diseases of the digestive system, cover.

   There are many more where these came from. However, even from just this sample, I think it is no longer tenable to doubt that toneless pinyin, generally, is in clearly widespread use. bd2412 T 02:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) User talk:123abc
3. Oppose --Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I've changed my mind.
4. Oppose Razorflame 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support. At worst it is harmless; it does serve to explain why this is an issue at all. bd2412 T 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) User talk:123abc
3. Support —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Razorflame 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) per BD2412.
6. Support Robert Ullmann 14:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) informative, explains what is going on. (do I have to go "oppose" some of the others? this vote is screwy, it isn't a for/against vote on a specific proposal, and isn't an approval vote either?) Robert Ullmann 14:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

   Not unless you are particularly opposed to something. This is a preference vote - best to pick the option that you find most suitable and vote to support it. bd2412 T 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the results are pretty self-explanatory: sub-votes with more "oppose" votes than "support" votes clearly fail, so we can ignore them completely; and the "Retain the existing usage note" vote clearly passes (though I suppose that would have been academic if Option 5 had won).

The only tricky part is that options 2 and 4 both pass, but are mutually exclusive. However, if you look at the actual votes, it's clear that option 4 completely dominates option 2: everyone who supported option 2 also supported, at least as strongly, option 4. The reverse, however, is not true: three voters supported option 4 without supporting option 2, and a fourth supported option 2 only as a "second choice". So, I feel comfortable declaring option 4 the winner and option 2 a loser.

Well, there's actually one other tricky part, discussed in the "Open issue" section below.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A total of eleven people voted in at least one sub-vote. Now, I think that if someone didn't vote at all in a given sub-vote, then it's reasonable to take that as an "abstain"; but I see some room for debate on this. Robert's vote comment, in particular, makes clear that not everyone really understood the structure of the vote, so we can't necessarily draw meaningful inferences from voter behavior.

So, should we consider "Option 4: Include toneless pinyin syllables with the nonstandard spelling template" and "Retain the existing usage note" to have passed with a VOTE? Or should we have a simple follow-up VOTE for each, to confirm that they really do both pass? Or should we give BD2412 the go-ahead to implement them (since he supports them both anyway), but not actually treat the result as having the force of VOTE? Or . . . ?

—Ruakh_TALK 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I concede that I have certainly learned a valuable lesson about how not to structure a vote. I think we can go ahead and call this a vote in favor of using the nonstandard spelling template, and retaining the usage note (which is separate from the preference issue). The clear takeaway from this, however, is that we should include toneless pinyin syllables, but not in the current disambiguation-like format. bd2412 T 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)