Module talk:cmn-common

RFM discussion: April 2013–February 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Module:zh to Module:cmn-common and Module:Hani-common

I suggested moving this on the talk page, and User:Wyang threatened to stop editing if we moved this. I don't think such a threat is really appropriate, so I am bringing it up here. My reasoning is that we don't treat zh as a language, and this module contains things that are specific to Mandarin that are not used for other Chinese languages. Therefore, I think that this should be split into a Mandarin-specific module (which would contain Pinyin transliteration) and a module for general handling of Han script (which would work for all languages that use it, presumably Japanese too). —CodeCat 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of all the background, but it seems to me that separating language- and script-specific processing functions is a different thing from how we organize our Chinese-language entries (which I see Wyang is concerned about). Anyway, Wyang should come up with any justification at all if he expects us to take his argument seriously. —Michael Z. 2013-04-20 17:30 z

I feel like Wyang is holding us hostage... I don't care where we put it, so I guess oppose if that's what it takes. Not a proud oppose, mind you, but a coerced oppose. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What's in the name? It seems User:Wyang is too sensitive about the issue. Well, the Chinese Wikipedia and Wiktionary uses "zh", even if they are in standard Mandarin. For many Chinese Mandarin = "Standard Chinese". User:Wyang is a smart editor, with great linguistic and coding skills, very productive and responsive too. I don't know. I second Metaknowledge, oppose as well but it's not very good to hold us hostage. It's much better to try and explain your position. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

S  Wyang seems to have left en.Wiktionary, without actually saying why he opposes the split. Was he opposed to the existence of the language code cmn, or its use, or the idea of a Mandarin language? —Michael Z. 2013-04-24 16:05 z

Judging from his user page, it seems that he felt that all Sinitic languages were one language, and treated the way we split them as a personal attack on him for some reason. —CodeCat 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm bringing this back up. The code "zh" is still deprecated, so this should still be renamed for consistency. —CodeCat 01:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Atitarev Everyone knows what I think and knows what I think is unconstitutional. What else am I supposed to say here? That this treatment is a stupid, stupid policy that the unfamiliar are desperately clinging onto? It's not a personal attack on me; it is just stupidity of the power-holding unfamiliar majority. Wyang (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Wyang that the Chinese dialects should not have been split, but, it is a policy that was voted on (I can't even seem to find the archive of that discussion). But regardless of whether you agree, you need to follow policies, otherwise Wiktionary would not work. --WikiTiki89 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't kill the messenger of the bad news :). I only advised you about the update. You yourself are inconsistent, you seem to dislike separation of Chinese dialects/topolects/languages/whatever but you're upset that your own dialect is not represented. FYI, I myself hold the view that Chinese entries can potentially be unified, especially considering that formal written Chinese is 99% the same across all existing dialects, especially on the single word level and all dialectal words (very minimal in quantity) can be addressed under "Chinese". I follow the vote, though, which makes sense, if you study it in a cool manner. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am upset that covering the pronunciations in Shanghai or Guangzhou for example (making other dialects represented) would incur reduplications of essentially all content under the language heading. This is why I dislike separation. They are not contradictory. Wyang (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there was probably no official vote, just lengthy discussion, e.g. here: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2009/May#A_modest_request and made a policy. Like I said before, you can still set up a vote (or a revote, if there was a vote) and change this, only if you act coolly (without throwing tantrums :) . There are pros and cons - essentially the same writing and a huge number of cognates on the words that ARE different and the fact that remote topolects ARE mutually incomprehensible (the actual sounds). Since Wiktionary represents a WRITTEN language, it is possible to unify all Chinese topolects and show regional differences in pronunciation and usage. The same way Serbo-Croatian was done but that's a long battle. If you're not ready, please stick to the standard, as I said, there are pros and cons and people are aware of both similarities and differences. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The main point for unifying Serbo-Croatian was also reduplication of contents but all Serbo-Croatian forms are also mutually comprehensible, which made it easier but still there was a lot of resistance from nationalists (still is). I don't know if it's possible to sufficiently represent major Chinese forms under one header. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese dialects are also mutually comprehensible in written form, and this dictionary is written not spoken. We can of course include pronunciations and audio files from different dialects just like we do with other languages. --WikiTiki89 05:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If this a reply to me then this is what I also said. My last comment was about ability to cover large portions of dialects (can we, should we?), if they are necessary, so that Min Nan, Cantonese, Wu, etc. speakers can't complain that their topolect is not presented (pronunciation or variations in meaning or usage). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was that you said that Serbo-Croatian dialects were merged because they are mutually comprehensible, so I just pointed out that that applies to Chinese as well in written form. As for properly representing dialects of Chinese, merging won't affect that. If they are properly represented, they will continue to be. If they aren't then, they still won't be. The advantage will just be that there will be less duplication. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

When I try to read any of our entries like I would an actual dictionary and I see a ton of different headers of varying shapes and sizes, my mind turns off to the content and I start believing what I'm reading is actually Wikipedia. Wyang's proposed version (see the entry for 斗) is much 'cleaner' and easier to read than the mess we have now, where each dialect wants representation and the majority of them have to be duplicated from the 'translingual' definition at the top. I hardly think there is going to be much, if any, information lost were we to collapse them under one header. And Anatoli brings up a good point: while the pronunciations may be different, the characters are so standardized that in written form they are mutually intelligible. While it is true we are different from other dictionaries, there are already several things inherent to Wiktionary that we should work with, like the fact we are online (not everybody has an internet connection) and that most of our content is written, not spoken (and the rest is on Commons). What do I expect when I read something like from jisho? Easy access to graphical etymology, radical, stroke count, derived shapes, and the different pronunciations for each region for the same character. And then there's our current entry on 斗. Why does Middle Chinese get a ton of headers in its own section when all it has is a one word pronunciation section?

The layout that Wyang chose:

* Chinese:
*: Cantonese: [[安全]]
*: Classical Chinese: [[安全]]
*: Gan: [[安全]]
*: Hakka: [[安全]]
*: Huizhou: [[安全]]
*: Jinyu: [[安全]]
*: Mandarin: [[安全]]
*: Middle Chinese: [[安全]]
*: Min Bei: [[安全]]
*: Min Dong: [[安全]]
*: Min Nan: [[安全]]
*: Min Zhong: [[安全]]
*: Old Chinese: [[安全]]
*: Pu Xian: [[安全]]
*: Xiang: [[安全]]
*: Wu: [[安全]]

is quite fine, compact, and gets the information across easily. It has its own deficits, not everything is perfect the first time, but it's a much needed improvement over the current system.

And if anyone's worried the "Chinese" header is too prominent we can always suggest alternative versions, but we need something better than what we have now. My tentative modification to his layout:

* Translingual (character, radical, stroke count, metadata)
* Graphical etymology, etymology
* Pronunciation table:
*: Cantonese: (pronunciation)
*: Classical Chinese: (pronunciation)
*: Gan: (pronunciation)
*: Hakka: (pronunciation)
*: Huizhou: (pronunciation)
*: Jinyu: (pronunciation)
*: Mandarin: (pronunciation)
*: Middle Chinese: (pronunciation)
*: Min Bei: (pronunciation)
*: Min Dong: (pronunciation)
*: Min Nan: (pronunciation)
*: Min Zhong: (pronunciation)
*: Old Chinese: (pronunciation)
*: Pu Xian: (pronunciation)
*: Xiang: (pronunciation)
*: Wu: (pronunciation)
(I noticed the layout for [[Special:Redirect/revision/19364045|斗]] lacked readings + transliterations/translations for the other Sinitic languages, but we can fix that later, and besides those languages have their own headers anyway.)
* Definition table:
# definition
#* quotation (dialect)
* Usage notes:
* References:

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this version of 斗 also includes pronunciations and transcriptions (Pinyin, Jyutping, POJ), and how various readings developed from the variant Old Chinese pronunciations (on the right). The senses are shared by the Chinese varieties. Wyang (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So many things have changed since this nomination was made (e.g. the revival of the code zh, centralization of Chinese, etc) that I am closing it. If something still needs to be changed, please comment. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)