Wiktionary talk:Votes/2013-11/Jyutping

This vote, as written, seems pointless. I think almost everyone agrees that if Cantonese books were genuinely written in Jyutping, then we would keep the syllables attested in those books; and I think almost everyone agrees that if a word is not attested in Cantonese, then we should not have entries for their Jyutping representations. The question is, when (or under what conditions) should we have a Jyutping entry?

Since a significant proportion of deletion policy is effected by people posting a term at RFV and pretending that their own views are objectively correct ("yes, we voted to allow Jyutping syllables in general, but this Jyutping syllable is not attested!"), and since one editor has already proposed engaging in that pretense in this case, the vote needs to give some sort of CFI for Jyutping syllables. (Not necessarily anything detailed, just something basic; say, that if the romanization does not meet the normal CFI, then it can only be kept if the Hanzi spelling meets the normal CFI and the romanization appears in secondary sources.)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a reasonable criterion. I would support it. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good point. In the vote on pinyin, you wrote:

"That a pinyin entry, using the tone-marking diacritics, be allowed whenever we have an entry for a traditional-characters or simplified-characters spelling.

That a pinyin entry have only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to a traditional-characters or simplified-characters entry"

Would there be any problem with carrying that wording over into this vote (changing "pinyin" to "Jyutping")? - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

With pinyin, it looks like I didn't include any comment about how we know that a pinyin syllable is correct for a given character. I don't remember if that was the intentional result of discussion (e.g. because it was felt that this is never a point of dispute anyway), or if it was oversight on my part, or what; but it may be worth having such a comment for Jyutping. Up to you. —Ruakh_TALK 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unlike Pinyin, Jyutping are all using numbers, not tone marks. We only allowed monosyllabic numbered pinyin (they should all be redirects to toned pinyin, anyway). If we are to keep Jyutping entries, we should only keep monosyllabic, not polysyllabic entries. Monosyllabic entries all have corresponding characters, so there's no need to carry the wording from the Pinyin vote. Verifying accuracy of Jyutping entries is possible via Unihan database, Sheik's Cantonese dictionary, etc. I'm still undecided how I'm going to vote but I'm against keeping polysyllabic Jyutping entries and no definitions should be provided, like Pinyin. We also should use Romanization header. My opinion only. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: "If we are to keep Jyutping entries, we should only keep monosyllabic, not polysyllabic entries": I suspect that everyone would be fine with it if you modified the proposal as you saw fit. (And if anyone does object, then we can always modify the vote to give multiple options.)   Re: "We also should use Romanization header": The vote leaves that question for subsequent BP discussion, so I think that should be fine. —Ruakh_TALK 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, modify the vote as you see fit. If there's disagreement, we'll sort it out on here. And yeah, I figured the question of what header to use should be left to the BP (the question actually had been being considered in the BP, as you know, until it was pointed out that we should hold a vote on allowing Jyutping at all before deciding on a header). - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

How should the wording be modified? "Voting on: allowing entries for the Jyutping romanizations of any single-syllable traditional-character or simplified-character entries we include."? "Voting on: allowing entries for the Jyutping romanizations of any (single) traditional characters or simplified characters we include (but not of multi-character terms)."? - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The vote no longer seems to be about Jyutping syllables, specifically (since we include plenty of polysyllabic terms, and the vote would allow their Jyutping romanizations). Should it be renamed? —Ruakh_TALK 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do we have polysyllabic terms for pinyin? --WikiTiki89 21:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yup; see Category:Mandarin pinyin. —Ruakh_TALK 21:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've renamed it. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whether it be Jyutping, Pinyin, Romaji, or others. Wyang (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is the discussion page for the vote Wiktionary:Votes/2013-11/Jyutping. Are you suggesting that the vote be modified in some way? —Ruakh_TALK 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The vote should be modified in a way such that views like titled are accommodated. At present the vote is on whether to "allow entries for the Jyutping romanizations of any traditional-character or simplified-character entries we include", not on whether to "allow entries for the Jyutping romanizations at all", whether it be existing character entries, non-existent character entries, or existing or non-existent polysyllabic words, or just phonotactically allowed Cantonese syllables. Wyang (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A ban on all "transcriptions" is too broad and different an issue to be shoehorned into this vote, I think. Allowing Jyutping romanizations of words that don't exist is also too different an issue to be added to this vote. No-one is likely to propose allowing Jyutping romanizations of entries that don't exist, and such a proposal would be unlikely to pass even if made, so you can effectively vote against including Jyutping by voting "oppose" here. If you want to ban other romanizations, you can draft a vote to that effect; I'll help you if you like. Do you want to ban all romanizations, including e.g. romanizations of Gothic, or just romanizations of Asian languages? - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that what Wyang is saying is that, whereas the original vote had two proposals ("Allow Jyutping" and "Forbid Jyutping"), the current vote has only one proposal ("Allow Jyutping if blah-blah-blah, restricted to blah-blah-blah"); so, the vote no longer offers an option for forbidding Jyutping. If the proposal fails, we'll still just have the status quo. (The stuff about other transcription types is off-topic, and is presumably just there to emphasize the categorical-ness of the "Oppose" vote.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't mix other romanisations into this vote either. "Forbid Jyutping" should be an option too. Sorry, I haven't been active here, having a busy time. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the pronunciation section and reformatted two entries bo1 and co1 to match our accepted pinyin entries (although pinyin has numbered and toned pinyin entries). Rather than "modicum of information" I think we should state - only links to hanzi, no definitions (short or long) and no other sections.

I have also created {{jyutping reading of}} based on {{pinyin reading of}}. Hopefully it will be easy to change others by bot if they pass.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your proposed format never mentions that the headword is a Jyutping romanization. Is that intentional? —Ruakh_TALK 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Note that {{pinyin reading of}} was edited a few years ago, shortly after the pinyin vote, to remove the word "pinyin". I've undone that now. So if that was your reason for omitting the analogous information from {{jyutping reading of}}, please re-evaluate.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Something like {{jyutping reading of}} should definitely display "Jyutping reading of", otherwise it may as well be called {{see char}} or something. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The format (See ) was agreed later, long after the pinyin vote when we had a big discussion about romaji to make romaji and pinyin look similar. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, there needs to be some indication that the entry is Pinyin/Jyutping/Romaji. --WikiTiki89 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, especially because Cantonese can also be romanized using pinyin, and the pinyin and jyutping romanizations differ. There needs to be an indication, when a romanization is provided, of which kind of romanization it is. It may be that Chinese/Japanese editors, with their focus on and prior knowledge of those languages, find it obvious that a given romanization is pinyin vs jyutping, but the general population is unlikely to be able to tell. (But the wording of template will not be specified by this vote. It is a matter of style for discussion to decide.) - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It may be a good suggestion but See was used in the vote for Japanese Romaji and was later applied to Mandarin to make romanisation entries similar. I have asked Mandarin editors before the change. If Jyutping (read: Yütping) becomes the Wiktionary standard, then See is sufficient, IMO. The Cantonese character entry will have jyutping word. I'm just trying to be consistent in the format. If we change the format for Jyutping entries, then we should change Pinyin and Rōmaji entries as well but that will require agreement (again!) from editors or a poll. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, bowing to pressure. I've modified {{jyutping reading of}}, {{pinyin reading of}} and {{ja-romanization of}} to display Jyutping reading of, Pinyin reading of and Rōmaji reading of accordingly. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does anything else need to be done to this vote before it starts? - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply