Template talk:zh-altname

Subset?

@Wyang What do you mean by "subset"? What about this? ばかFumiko￥^talk 05:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take "Alternative name" is essentially a "name" for something, or something to which a name has been given. For example 太陽電池 is an alternative name of 太陽能電池 (for the thing "solar battery"), and 類風濕性關節炎 an alt. name for 類風濕關節炎 ("rheumatoid arthritis"). They are synonyms, but a specific type of synonyms resulting from different ways of translating, etc. I don't really agree that it should be the same template as synonyms-of. Wyang (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't cleared up anything. What exactly is the difference? Why are you focusing only on translation? What does this have to do with translation alone? ばかFumiko￥^talk 05:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The tone is getting strange. I don't want to argue with you. Just revert if you would like. Wyang (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, that's why I'm asking. You're clearly not clearing up anything with "different ways of translating, etc." What makes 太陽能電池 more than a synonym of 太陽電池? What's "strange" about the tone? If you're confident about your logic, why back down even if this would result in an argument? ばかFumiko￥^talk 05:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

These are specific objects, things, concepts that have names, and the different names in the language exist because different people tried to coin different names for them, or people in different regions gave different names to these entities, and so on. 醜 ("ugly") isn't a name, thus while it is a synonym of 難看, it isn't an alternative name of 難看. Same for 吃 ("to eat"), which is a synonym of, but not an alternative name for 食. On the other hand, 古典力學 ("classical mechanics") is both an alternative name for, and a synonym of 經典力學. Both words are names for "classical mechanics" in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, those sound kinda flimsy. What you're citing are adjectives and verbs which are not what people would usually call "names" (thinking of the "name" of a state or an action already sounds weird). What you're citing as "names" seem to be merely "nouns", which in themselves aren't any special. Could you give some examples of nouns? What makes a term a "name" (what criteria)? Are words for, say, "love", "hate", "dog", "cat" names, too? Are dialectal terms for those considered "alternative names"? Are there any guidelines on Wiktionary? And why should there be the label "name"? I feel like the concept of "alternative names" could only be applicable in cases of "proper names", like say in the cases of "New York" vs the "Big Apple", or "China" vs the "People's Republic of China" vs the "Republic of China", or the "Republican Party" vs the "GOP", or "Great Britain" vs "Britain" vs the "UK", or the "ACA" vs "Obamacare" etc. in which, some names seem to be merely "nicknames" or "aliases", rather than true synonyms, but even then I'm not sure the line can be clearly defined. What you're proposing sounds strange to me and I'm honestly struggling to see the supposed nuances here. ばかFumiko￥^talk 09:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to summarise it... but I feel this wording or description would naturally describe only certain nouns, usually nouns that are more concrete, although you can also use it for relatively new concepts. You can say "... is an alternative name for dog / cat", but not really love or hate. It would sound weird. You can also say "... is an alternative name for New York / Big Apple (and so on)" to describe proper nouns, as well as some concept that's novel and abstract "an alternative name for butanoic acid / republicanism / ...". Describing these words as "it's an alternative (i.e. another) name for ..." is the more natural-sounding (IMO) way of describing it. Wyang (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think opening the can of worms of "You can say "... is an alternative name for dog / cat", but not really love or hate" and "relatively new concepts" is a way to go. Those are just too vague of a slippery slope to be applicable, agreeable, or consistently interpreted. Not to mention, it's also dicey to presume which terms are "relatively new", even the words "relatively" or "novel" themselves do not inspire confidence, as in "relatively" to what, or "novel" compared to what. Unless you have a database of dates of first use or something that you could share here, and establish which terms are recent enough (and concrete enough?) to be considered a "name" rather than simply a "noun". Otherwise, it just seems silly to include dubious and ambiguous distinctions that are not that helpful, imo. Like, I'm not sure if "alternative name" is any more intuitive than "synonym" if you're not dealing with proper names, you know, one of the only categories that most reasonable people can agree are names. ばかFumiko￥^talk 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not really hard to judge which concepts are novel - rheumatoid arthritis, classical mechanics, analytical mechanics, solar battery, ... these are all new concepts to which different Chinese names have been associated, in an attempt to translate. I find this template very useful when creating Chinese entries en masse, hence the creation of this template in 2016 and the recreation last year. It gives a tinge of 'active coinage' and is a more natural way of describing these words, unlike the synonym-of description, which is rather neutral. I don't think there's harm in keeping it... These templates are not perfectly fitting anyway - the more natural wording would be "alternative translation for ... / the old name for ... / now-dated name for ... / the more formal name for ...", and some specification would be useful. Wyang (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, this "natural wording" thing is very subjective on your part, because you haven't provided any concrete criteria so that other people can follow. How do you determine what's "natural" and what's not? What exactly is "new"? Since the 17th century? Since the 19th century? How do you know whether it's hard or easy to judge? How is any of this any useful if there are no specifications on what they mean, how they work, and how you can prove the differences are legitimate and worth pointing out? And there's really no need for different styles of "wording": those are what {{label}}s are for. For example, if a word is very new, you can use "neologism". If a word is old and no longer in much use, you can use "archaic, "obsolete", or "dated". If it's formal, then use "formal". These can be proven with the contexts that the words most frequently occur in, or the dates they were first used, or their statuses in the current parlance. Making up labels with no concrete evidence on its usefulness based solely on vague notions of "not really hard" or "relatively new" just to suit one's own liking is, to be frank, highly disingenuous. I'm not saying it's out of question to use the label "alternative name" based on those notions, but if you're so insistent on using it, at least help other people out with what they mean and how to determine which terms fit those descriptions. Write some helpful descriptions in the template document, something like "this template is used for alternative nouns coined in the late 18th century and later" or whatever. ばかFumiko￥^talk 02:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I will add some description. I won't reply further. The tone is again back to being rather combative. Wyang (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang There's a relevant discussion at Template talk:alternative term for. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)