Talk:भजन
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Metaknowledge
@Metaknowledge Special:Contributions/Wyangbot Then why is this bot running? For example [1] —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know. Although I don't seem to be able to find any policy on this, @Wyang should definitely not be running his bot to do any tasks that lack consensus, and I don't remember him ever seeking consensus on this. (As the standard applies to definitions in all languages, the support of e.g. Thai editors alone does not mean it should be done on Thai entries.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wiktionary_talk:About_Thai#Standardised_formatting_for_Thai_entries —suzukaze (t・c) 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- (E/C) It was discussed here: Wiktionary talk:About Thai#Standardised formatting for Thai entries. I think the entry format should at least be consistent for a particular language, so that it looks professionally presented as a dictionary. Most of the existing entries of Thai use semicolons to separate the different parts of a sense and end senses with a full stop, especially the entries that the native Thai editors have greatly expanded on. Wyang (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I already said, I value consistency of the dictionary as a whole over consistency of a single language, when it comes to matters that are universal for all languages (like definition lines). If you want to keep running this, I think you should bring it up in the BP first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, there is no consistency at the moment. Chinese entries use semicolons to separate the parts of a sense, Japanese entries separate them using commas, Telugu entries end definitions with a full stop. The style of definitions in non-English entries is also vastly different: some have a succinct translation style of definitions, and some have a more explanatory style. A massive amount of work will need to be done to unify this. Wyang (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is simply one small part of it, but it is an easy one to change by bot, and one in which we have an existing standard (despite it not being followed universally). That's why I think you should get consensus from the broader community first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Where was the existing standard recorded? WT:EL doesn't seem to have it though. Wyang (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently EL used to have it (more or less), but it got removed in a vote. None of the discussion really addressed the situation at hand, periods with concomitant capitalisation, but I also have noticed that such punctuation is quite uncommon across Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Where was the existing standard recorded? WT:EL doesn't seem to have it though. Wyang (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is simply one small part of it, but it is an easy one to change by bot, and one in which we have an existing standard (despite it not being followed universally). That's why I think you should get consensus from the broader community first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, there is no consistency at the moment. Chinese entries use semicolons to separate the parts of a sense, Japanese entries separate them using commas, Telugu entries end definitions with a full stop. The style of definitions in non-English entries is also vastly different: some have a succinct translation style of definitions, and some have a more explanatory style. A massive amount of work will need to be done to unify this. Wyang (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I already said, I value consistency of the dictionary as a whole over consistency of a single language, when it comes to matters that are universal for all languages (like definition lines). If you want to keep running this, I think you should bring it up in the BP first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)