Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one
Wording
Voting on: Merging the following Middle Indo-Aryan lects as "Prakrit" (pra, currently etymology-only):
- Ardhamagadhi Prakrit (
pka) - Elu Prakrit (
elu-prk) - Khasa Prakrit (
inc-kha) - Magadhi Prakrit (
inc-mgd) - Maharastri Prakrit (
pmh) - Paisaci Prakrit (
inc-psc) - Sauraseni Prakrit (
psu)
Background: Many of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects in CAT:Prakrit languages were originally considered to differ to such an extent that they were treated as independent languages. However, as the coverage of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects has grown, it has become apparent that they do not differ from one another as originally thought. Furthermore, the academic literature on Middle Indo-Aryan frequently refer to these Middle Indo-Aryan lects as "Prakrit" without specifying the exact lect, and the attestation of each lect varies considerably. Treating each of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects as independent languages has led to confusion, which has hindered the coverage Middle Indo-Aryan. Merging these Middle Indo-Aryan lects as a single language will make it easier for editors to manage the coverage of Middle Indo-Aryan.
Further details: The seven language codes listed above will be changed etymology-only languages. These seven etymology-only codes will be used for the etymologies of their descendant entries (as they are used currently). If a "Prakrit" term can be considered to belong to one or more of the seven Middle Indo-Aryan lects listed above, labels such as {{lb|pra|<lect name>}} would be used to automatically categorise the term.
- For example:
- Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "inc-psc" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. is specifically attested as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "inc-psc" is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF., so, after the merger, there would be
{{lb|pra|Paisaci}}beside its definition, which would link to w:Paisaci Prakrit and categorise the term into a category such asCategory:Paisaci Prakrit. The language-header will be "Prakrit".
- Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "inc-psc" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. is specifically attested as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "inc-psc" is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF., so, after the merger, there would be
- 𑀧𑀟𑀤𑀺 (paḍadi) is attested as Sauraseni Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit, so, after the merger, there would be
{{lb|pra|Magadhi|Sauraseni}}beside its definition, which would categorise the term into categories such asCategory:Magadhi PrakritandCategory:Sauraseni Prakrit. The language-header will be "Prakrit".
- 𑀧𑀟𑀤𑀺 (paḍadi) is attested as Sauraseni Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit, so, after the merger, there would be
Although the following languages are included in the category CAT:Prakrit languages, they will not be merged into "Prakrit" (pra):
- Ashokan Prakrit (
inc-ash) - Gandhari (
pgd) - Kamarupi Prakrit (
inc-kam) - Pali (
pi) Kutchkutch (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)- Thanks @Kutchkutch: for making it clear. Basically, many of the sources editors most commonly employ simply deal with "Prakrit" without mentioning the lect. With Prakrits being extinct languages, if we are to follow a conservative approach of sourcing every entry then we cannot create entries for many Prakrit lects because of absence of sources mentioning that exact lect. Merging the Prakrits listed above will be very helpful. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Descendants
@SodhakSH Formatting the descendants section is more of a matter of style than policy since there are entry-specific considerations, so perhaps including the revised descendants section style is not necessary. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussions
@SodhakSH Not many users are familiar with Prakrit, so it might be helpful to link any discussion related to the contents of the proposal. Are there any discussions that are not related to the contents of the proposal? Since some of the links may change in the future (such as user pages), should any of them be permalinked? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. All the discussions are related to Prakrit, and hence to this proposal. I was just pointing out that they aren't directly related to merging the Prakrits. It's good to list them all (for the reason you stated above), and thank you for doing so. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch Can you list a discussion on the topic of Prakrits using Brahmi instead of Devanagari? It would be helpful for anyone to know about the progress of these languages, here on Wiktionary. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @SodhakSH: User_talk:AryamanA/2017#Devanagari_for_Prakrits? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Schedule
@SodhakSH Is this ready to open once 5:30 am (IST) 22 March 2021 arrives? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely. I think we have more than enough details on the vote, and of course anyone can ask on this talk page for any further information. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Proposing vote end date to be March 28
@Kutchkutch, SodhakSH, Bhagadatta, Metaknowledge, AryamanA: Is it possible to make the vote last only a week? One month is a very long time: the post-vote implementation process is going to be very toilsome (both bot work & manual cleanup will be needed), so the one-month idleness would be fretting out valuable time. We have done the (needless) formality of bringing our proposal before the wider community as Victar’s contention required, and furthermore, the vote would inevitably pass anyway; therefor, are you okay with a quick end? Thanks. -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done. If any of you have any objections, please feel free to revert. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted. You can't make a vote last a week. --
{{victar|talk}}04:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)- Totally fine, but how long should the vote last, minimum? What Inqilābī said is completely true, so the vote end date should be at least reduced by a bit. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- See Wiktionary:Voting_policy#Closing_the_vote. Typically votes last a month, but also there is no precedent to reduce the time of a vote once it has stated. --
{{victar|talk}}05:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- See Wiktionary:Voting_policy#Closing_the_vote. Typically votes last a month, but also there is no precedent to reduce the time of a vote once it has stated. --
- Totally fine, but how long should the vote last, minimum? What Inqilābī said is completely true, so the vote end date should be at least reduced by a bit. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Which basically implies we'll be stuck here for a month. Maybe @Metaknowledge can do something for the problem stated above by Inqilābī. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 05:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's do two weeks, which has seen use in the past. Victar evidently cares so little about the topic (how to handle the Prakrits) that he hasn't even bothered to cast a vote, but he loves bureaucracy so much that he wants to waste everyone's time. As I see it, the only option is to ignore his opinion, because it is no longer possible to assume good faith on his part. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: You've truly now come to the point of personal attacks. Show me precedent for a vote being shorted to two weeks without consensus to do so. --
{{victar|talk}}06:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)- It's good to see that you've finally voted. It's a pity, of course, that the issues you raise are better suited for a discussion rather than a vote. If only we had done it that way! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: You've truly now come to the point of personal attacks. Show me precedent for a vote being shorted to two weeks without consensus to do so. --
- Let's do two weeks, which has seen use in the past. Victar evidently cares so little about the topic (how to handle the Prakrits) that he hasn't even bothered to cast a vote, but he loves bureaucracy so much that he wants to waste everyone's time. As I see it, the only option is to ignore his opinion, because it is no longer possible to assume good faith on his part. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Which basically implies we'll be stuck here for a month. Maybe @Metaknowledge can do something for the problem stated above by Inqilābī. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 05:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Μετάknowledge, thanks for sorting this out. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 06:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Victar please stop this, it's literally wasting everyone's time. The vote is sure to pass and wasting a month is fruitless - till then I (and others) would have created many Maharastri Prakrit entries which would have to be cleaned up. So please let 4th April be the last date as @Metaknowledge suggested. Also, it's tedious updating the date in 3 places - this vote, WT:Votes/Active and WT:Votes/Timeline. Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @शब्दशोधक: Stop what, following voting policy? I thought you supported my reasons for this vote. Two weeks is not enough time to give people a chance to comment and no one has yet to address my concerns. --
{{victar|talk}}06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)- @Victar: I've addressed your concerns. I am convinced that having a vote for such a change is good after all, for the reasons you listed. I bet, though, that nobody is going to make a significant vote (support or oppose) after 4th April, or even 28th March (day after tomorrow) and hence, in my opinion, we don't need to keep it as long as a month. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 08:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta, SodhakSH: You can't simply change the end date of vote to sooner just because you feel the vote should end. If votes did that, it would be absolute chaos. There is no rush to merge these language codes. They'll be here in a month's time just the same. --
{{victar|talk}}16:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)- @Victar: Sure, after all if it's taken this long then what's another month. But I restored it to the previous version because the appeal was to not revert without consensus. There are people here who feel a vote wasn't necessary and there's those who feel otherwise so changing the date to April 4 was kind of meeting you halfway. Votes that last a couple of weeks happen all the time. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 16:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta, SodhakSH: You can't simply change the end date of vote to sooner just because you feel the vote should end. If votes did that, it would be absolute chaos. There is no rush to merge these language codes. They'll be here in a month's time just the same. --
- @Victar: I've addressed your concerns. I am convinced that having a vote for such a change is good after all, for the reasons you listed. I bet, though, that nobody is going to make a significant vote (support or oppose) after 4th April, or even 28th March (day after tomorrow) and hence, in my opinion, we don't need to keep it as long as a month. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 08:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @शब्दशोधक: Stop what, following voting policy? I thought you supported my reasons for this vote. Two weeks is not enough time to give people a chance to comment and no one has yet to address my concerns. --
- @Victar please stop this, it's literally wasting everyone's time. The vote is sure to pass and wasting a month is fruitless - till then I (and others) would have created many Maharastri Prakrit entries which would have to be cleaned up. So please let 4th April be the last date as @Metaknowledge suggested. Also, it's tedious updating the date in 3 places - this vote, WT:Votes/Active and WT:Votes/Timeline. Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Chill dude, I understand your point! Thinking and discussing about changing the date is itself causing chaos and confusion, so I do get what'd happen on actually changing it.
I quit. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 17:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī: I’m fine with Metaknowledge’s suggestion of two weeks, but that seems unlikely with all the edit warring that has occurred. Kutchkutch (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @SodhakSH, if you had made the vote last a week while creating the vote, then all this drama would not have happened. But we sure learnt a lesson to be cunning amongst insincere people hence. -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 20:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Side Discussion
Hopefully, the additional time will allow DerekWinters (if he‘s aware of this after 2+ years of no editing or if he’s been editing as an IP) and Msasag to vote. Kutchkutch (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Kutchkutch I'm not quite knowledgeable on this, also I'm not following this discussion, so my opinion won't be so worthy on this subject. I'll support the winning party. Actually I have some questions like how will Pali be treated. And languages using different scripts like Gandhari. But they are probably answered already. Msasag (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Msasag: Go ahead and support, then! 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Msasag Since you've worked on CAT:Kamarupi Prakrit language and CAT:Assamese terms derived from Magadhi Prakrit, you're a Middle Indo-Aryan editor. The proposal doesn't directly change how Pali and Gandhari are treated. The only effect that the proposal would have on Pali and Gandhari is their relation to other Middle Indo-Aryan lects. It's interesting that the entries in CAT:Kamarupi Prakrit lemmas use the Siddham script. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Prakrit vs <lect> Prakrit (in etymologies)
I've been thinking of this for a while (and we discussed it too) - ‘Prakrit’ is better to be kept at etymologies, if we don't have specific attestation of the word in a particular lect. Categories like CAT:Hindi terms inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit, CAT:Marathi terms inherited from Maharastri Prakrit, CAT:Punjabi terms inherited from Paisaci Prakrit, CAT:Nepali terms inherited from Khasa Prakrit, etc. should be made subcategories of categories like CAT:Hindi terms inherited from Prakrit, CAT:Marathi terms inherited from Prakrit, CAT:Punjabi terms inherited from Prakrit, CAT:Nepali terms inherited from Prakrit, etc. Many Nepali and Punjabi etymologies currently show Inherited from {{inh|ne/pa|inc-kha/inc-psc|<>}} (compare {{cog|pra-mah|<termA>}})... and it would be better if it is simply Inherited from {{inh|ne/pa|pra|<termA>}}.... Thoughts? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SodhakSH: Yes, of course. If for example a Prakrit word be attested as Magadhi Prakrit, then in the Etymology section concerned, we shall show the etymon as
inc-mgd. If however, there be no Magadhi Prakrit attestation, then we shall useprato show the Prakrit etymon. At any rate, though, I feel that there’s no need to show both the specific dialectal form and the Prakrit from at the same time, inasmuch as we already have Ashokan Prakrit set as an ancestor. Nevertheless, in the Descendants section, the status quo should be kept. -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Implementation
@AryamanA, can you please implement the changes proposed in this vote, since it has passed? Also, pra would have to be made an ancestor of the languages whose ancestor lects are being merged (see the above discussion). Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 10:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Benwing2 -⸘- dictātor·mundī 21:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Erutuon, both of them seem to be busy, so can you please take the charge? The first step is to create the language code pra (currently etymology-only) for Category:Prakrit language. Next, you have to relegate CAT:Ardhamagadhi Prakrit language (pka), CAT:Helu language (elu-prk), CAT:Khasa Prakrit language (inc-kha), CAT:Magadhi Prakrit language (inc-mgd), CAT:Maharastri Prakrit language (pmh), CAT:Paisaci Prakrit language, (inc-psc), and CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit language (psu) to being etymology-only languages and also regional Prakrits (i.e., as ] for each of them). You can look at the vote page if I am missing any other details. Thank you! -⸘- dictātor·mundī 19:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems as though everybody in this world is busy. @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, would anyone of you be able to do the job by way of your sysop. privileges? -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī: I could try to do something until more experienced and proficient users can help out, but I would have to make sure that it doesn’t cause a mess and that it doesn’t conflict with the efforts of others. Kutchkutch (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī, Kutchkutch: The Prakrit code can be added to Module:languages/data3/p . Will the family also be "Prakrit"? But demoting Sauraseni et al to etymology only languages will require a simultaneous bot operation to change all the lemmas of these languages to Prakrit or else there will be module errors in hundreds of pages. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta: Thank you. Let us do the things that we can do first; the bot work could be done later. We would mostly have to categorize the entries as
{{lb|pra|Prakrit LECT}}, for which we would just have categories for the regional Prakrits. Methinks etymology only languages are needed only in etymologies & descendants, so for the time being we could do without those. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 06:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)- @Inqilābī: It's no good; the fact that "Prakrit" is also defined as a language family is giving us trouble. I expect a solution would be to change the code "pra" to something like "inc-pra" at Module:families/data. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 09:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta: Oh yea you are right— there are also other Prakrit languages besides the ones we would be merging, so
inc-prafor the unified Prakrit language is a good idea (and the only practical option for us).prawould be preserved for the family. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 09:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)- @Inqilābī: It's going now! The culprit was an extra pair of braces which I had mistakenly entered; Kutchkutch graciously fixed it. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 10:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta: Oh yea you are right— there are also other Prakrit languages besides the ones we would be merging, so
- @Inqilābī: It's no good; the fact that "Prakrit" is also defined as a language family is giving us trouble. I expect a solution would be to change the code "pra" to something like "inc-pra" at Module:families/data. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 09:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta: Thank you. Let us do the things that we can do first; the bot work could be done later. We would mostly have to categorize the entries as
- @Inqilābī, Kutchkutch: The Prakrit code can be added to Module:languages/data3/p . Will the family also be "Prakrit"? But demoting Sauraseni et al to etymology only languages will require a simultaneous bot operation to change all the lemmas of these languages to Prakrit or else there will be module errors in hundreds of pages. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī, SodhakSH, Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: I'll get to this over the weekend, great to see we have approval finally. Life is a bit busy between exams and conferences. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Descendants
@Kutchkutch, d’you not think this is being too overwrought with the Prakrit lects mentioned as descendants. I can understand you want to show the family tree well— in that case perhaps listing the Apabhramsas should suffice? Also @Bhagadatta, SodhakSH. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 20:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī, SodhakSH: diff and Category_talk:Prakrit_language#Labels_from_descendants was in reference to the merged Prakrit language rather than Ashokan Prakrit if they are already next to the headword/definition(s). According to the family tree at Category:Prakrit language only Sauraseni Prakrit and Paisaci have Apabhramsa descendants (ignoring Kamarupi Prakrit) and the Maharastri Prakrit term is specifically attested. So, removing the Prakrit lects in the descendants trees may look unorganised. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)