User talk:TeleComNasSprVen: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pointless rfe and rfp)
(Pointless rfe and rfp: move to RFD, I find it somewhat disturbing you've posted to my talkpage for three threads in such a short timespan as if you have taken issue with my presence here)
Line 81: Line 81:
 
:::::Unfortunately I chose this name at a time when most usernames had been taken by SUL, and for fear of breaking any backlinks to my name I'd rather keep this than have a rename or edit under a different name. Most other people do not bother to complain about it. Do you use your real name and prefer others do the same? For me, it is no. And besides, the username or how you address me is irrelevant so long as the message is communicated. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 
:::::Unfortunately I chose this name at a time when most usernames had been taken by SUL, and for fear of breaking any backlinks to my name I'd rather keep this than have a rename or edit under a different name. Most other people do not bother to complain about it. Do you use your real name and prefer others do the same? For me, it is no. And besides, the username or how you address me is irrelevant so long as the message is communicated. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 
{{outdent}} Consider things like [[Talk:great-great-great-grandfather|great-great-great-grandfather]] at the RFD discussion nominated by Connel MacKenzie and the recent RFD/RFV nominations by WikiTiki, though they seem idiomatic to you. The arguments presented at those discussions initially did not cite CFI, but pointed to problems with how we handle words ''using'' CFI. Would you consider them annoying as well? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 23:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 
{{outdent}} Consider things like [[Talk:great-great-great-grandfather|great-great-great-grandfather]] at the RFD discussion nominated by Connel MacKenzie and the recent RFD/RFV nominations by WikiTiki, though they seem idiomatic to you. The arguments presented at those discussions initially did not cite CFI, but pointed to problems with how we handle words ''using'' CFI. Would you consider them annoying as well? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 23:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 
== Pointless rfe and rfp ==
 
 
In {{diff|25050025}}, you added etymology and pronunciation section. This you should not do, IMHO, since both etymology are pronunciation of "cod liver oil" are sum-of-parts and obvious. And even if the etymology were worth having, then you should be adding it rather than placing rfe around, since the etymology must be clear to you. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 07:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 
:Why? This is to clearly distinguish it from a sense that is overtly "sum of parts": cod + liver + oil. You've basically supported its deletion at RFD... you know you can do so by actually participating in RFD, right? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 07:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 08:08, 18 January 2014

/archives

Template:derivcatboiler

What are you trying to achieve with your edits? A lot of your attempts are breaking things. —CodeCat 00:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't account for the Lua module the first time because I wasn't aware of it. On the second attempt I read up on some of the Lua documentation and managed to put in the category. My purpose was to put all "Category:Terms derived from X" from Special:UncategorizedCategories into Category:Terms derived from specific languages or something similar. Did I break any particular pages on the second attempt? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
These templates are very intricate. There is a Lua replacement that's hopefully a bit more straightforward, but it's still being tested and isn't complete. I think what you want to edit is {{derivcatboiler/ROOT}} or {{derivcatboiler/OTHER}}. —CodeCat 00:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that I look more closely, I think something went wrong with the edits I made to the templates recently. The categories shouldn't be orphaned at all, they weren't originally. I'll see if I can fix it. —CodeCat 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see now, my second attempt partially nullified this edit of yours which introduced the catfix template and recategorized the ones lacking the first parameter. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the problem, hopefully. I will be happy when these templates don't exist anymore... —CodeCat 00:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

にっぽん

Hi there, it's the general practice, and one which I want to encourage as much as possible, only to put information about a term on its lemma entry, and the practice has been to use the kanji spellings of terms as their lemmata, so in this case the pronunciation of にっぽん should be at 日本 and only at that page. Kana entries should serve as soft redirects much like disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. The main reason is that duplicating information creates a maintenance nightmare. Thanks in advance. Haplogy () 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgDone though I left in the pronunciation for にほん because it also has a noun entry. Is that ok? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Once it's created I think the pronunciation section should be in 二本. I could be wrong but I think the emphasis is on に in 二本 and ほん in 日本, so once somebody adds information about stress they would be different pronunciations anyway. Haplogy () 01:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: tea

Yes. FVDP was originally released under GPL 2.0+ [1], but the author gave permission to Wiktionary to use it under the GFDL back when Wikimedia used GFDL, and a separate project, TraTu, later got permission to use it under CC BY-SA. However, the Vietnamese Wiktionary avoided importing the German↔Vietnamese dictionaries due to poor quality. We also omitted the entries that FVDP got from the VACETS project and user-contributed definitions that are present in some copies of FVDP, because we weren't sure about the copyright status of those sources. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, now that I look into it, VACETS-DICT has a generous license that should be compatible with CC BY-SA. It only requires attribution. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. (I had used hundred as a model, hence the usage note.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese entries with classifiers

Please see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words and Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words. Do you have any problem with the precedent that these deletions would set? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to draw up a response at the first link: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Yellow background

Do you use the MonoBook skin? The Vietnamese wikis customize that skin to show File:Headbgyellow.jpg in the background of non-article namespaces. (The English Wikipedia used to use a periwinkle content background in those cases.) Originally, the Standard (Classic) skin used to turn golden for non-article namespaces, presumably so it would be harder to pass off (say) a user page as an article. In Vector, the Vietnamese wikis still change all the light blue elements to light green. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I use Monobook and thanks for the clarification. I was a bit confused at first why some pages were yellow and some retained the 'whiteness' that the Monobook skin has on other wikis. That makes sense, although it could be made more apparent. (Or maybe it is explained somewhere and I just haven't looked closely enough into viwiki's documentation). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It used to be a software feature, so I guess we never thought to document it anywhere. I mentioned it at w:vi:Wikipedia:Bài bách khoa là gì?, which is quite obscure, but we always assumed that people would notice the connection between the color change and the namespace in the title. I'm currently toying with other background changes, like diagonal stripes on sandbox pages and "PREVIEW" wordmarks when previewing changes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Re: "I always thought copyrighting a dictionary is pretty silly given that definitions of words contain no original thought."

Be advised that definitions are copyrighted, whether you find it silly or not. "Original thought" is not a prerequisite for copyright; it is the "original expression" in a very weak sense of "original" that is a prerequisite. Actually, original thought itself is not protected, since it is the expression that is protected, not the thought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my original statement was a rationale for the {{MultiLicensePD}} above. There are more considerations on this at the Wikipedia page on the 'threshold of originality', which I'll quote here:

The threshold of originality is a concept in Anglo-American-based copyright law systems that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection).

As I understand it, because most definitions are common knowledge (read: facts) rather than expressions of thought, it is easy to take a number of non-original pages from a dictionary without having to comply with copyright. It is only when it reaches an arbitrary threshold, say of about a hundred or so pages, that it is necessary to comply with copyright or claim fair use. And even then, I do not believe we have any power, legal or otherwise, to stop people from simply not giving attribution to us, out of sheer laziness or otherwise: they could just claim they got it from their personal dictionary.
I've just been thinking harder lately about why we bother with the CC-BY-SA attribution at all. Perhaps the other Wiktionary users will think differently. Perhaps you may think differently about how copyright works on this site. I'm just exploring its ramifications here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Definitions are not common knowledge; meanings are. Definitions are specific phrasings, and these are not common knowledge. If you randomly ask people to give you definitions for various words, they will either give you no definition at all or they will give you one that differs from what you find in dictionaries, unless they actually check a dictionary. If you check OneLook dictionaries, you will find that different dictionary makers try to come up with slight variations in the definition phrasing.
Whatever you think, I ask you to refrain from copying English definitions from other copyrighted dictionaries (as contrasted to public domain ones, such as Webster 1913); I do not claim you have already added anything.
I do not know what you mean by "non-original pages from a dictionary". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
"Non-original pages from a dictionary" refers to the copyright context of "originality" in the quote above. It does not make sense for people to violate copyright when they quote dictionaries in everyday speech and forgetting to give proper attribution, in response to questions posed by others like "What does X mean?" Well, it is one thing to question copyright rules and another to comply with them. I can choose to disagree with copyrights, and still comply with them, just as I do the rest of the policies on this site if I have found a policy I disagree with. But I guess the ontological questions of thoughts, expressions, meanings and copyrights could be outside the scope of this dictionary.
Re: "Definitions are not common knowledge", then they are not expressions of fact? Expressions of meaning? Opinions are original thought, and copyrightable; the fact that the sky is blue is not, and a picture snapshot of the sky in its entire blueness is not copyrightable. To the extent definitions are also expressions of an author's opinion on what the meaning ought to be, then they are copyrightable. But most definitions are true to the fact they represent, which is common knowledge. Copyright on words is a maze of legal territory to get lost in.
Re: "refrain from copying English definitions" All the entries I have so far published are my own, and they are also everyone's knowledge, as I've indicated in the template. I've not gone even as far as to quote the great Webster 1913. Non-originality is saying fuego means fire, and that "fire burns". It is the presentation of that fact, how we think it should be, using the various templates and headers and metadata that we use, that is copyrightable. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

CFI and idiomaticity

"CFI:idiomaticity" does not refer to "conveying meaning"; we have WT:CFI#Conveying meaning for that as a separate section in CFI, and "conveying meaning" is part of "attested", not "CFI:idiomatic". "CFI:idiomatic" is not the same as "idiomatic"; CFI:idiomatic is the same as "not sum of parts"; CFI:idiomatic is defined at WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Then explain the quotes I brought up and the arguments presented therein. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikitiki got it wrong in the quotes: SOP is the same as not CFI:idiomatic. There is nothing to explain other than human error.
Let us see what WT:CFI says:
  • "... of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic."
  • Attested” means verified through [...] use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).
  • An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
All you have done is refer back to CFI like a legal document; you've not provided any constructive argument for a possible vote that I called for to set up which would solve most of this. You're still making it about keeping or deleting the entry instead of responding to my question appropriately. Anyway, this is better discussed at the RFD which will gain better input. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, since that is what you proclaim to be 'human error', I suggest you leave that comment about that in the thread on WT:RFD#television show rather than here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, this is how RFD works, referring to what CFI sets up as criteria for inclusion. Most of the time, we actually do abide by CFI, and do check whether the nominated terms meet WT:CFI#Idiomaticity or not. Some RFD discussions may use non-CFI arguments (including mine), but that should be made explicit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not disagree that CFI is a good document to abide by; however, it's not the end-all and be-all argument-stopping cut-short-all-thought binding document that you seem to make it out to be. Sometimes the exception proves the rule, not just its adherents. RFD is one of many venues by which we can do a reassessment of CFI and how it applies to our treatment of words.
You've still not provided a solid argument in the RFD discussion to indicate whether or not you support what I've said. References to CFI do not adequately address the point I made earlier in the RFD discussion about how best to think about and treat repetitively occurring entries, which are not necessarily sums of parts. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In WT:RFD#hahaha, I made my argument entirely within CFI. There, in 'Okay, does anyone think that our entries for "ha" units beyond a certain number, say three or four, convey any idiomaticity to them, ...', you spoke of "idiomaticity", which in RFD normally refers to WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. So I think it relevant to point out that "hahahahahahahahaha" is CFI:idiomatic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe I spoke about 'general' "idiomaticity", referred to by WikiTiki, not CFI idiomaticity. I've said it there and I've said it here, it does not have to pertain to the particular entry in question. It's about other things in general, like "great-great-" etc, and I think you've missed that part. And anyway, this discussion should be moved back to RFD. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Since CFI defines the term "idiomaticity" and since failure of idiomaticity is the main reason for terms being nominated at RFD, as opposed to RFV, there is no way an experienced Wiktionarian can think that "idiomaticity" in RFD refers to general idiomaticity as opposed to WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I deliberately chose to talk to you here rather than at RFD, since the explanations I am making are very basic, trivial for editors experienced with RFD and CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I understand it well enough, having been here for some time now, and I've even cited WT:COALMINE as a reason to keep a few entries. The nomination I made may have been in error, but it's an opportunity for us to explore this issue beyond what CFI just tells us. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
When, in RFD, you use the word "idiomaticity" with the intent not to refer to CFI, that suggests you do not understand RFD and CFI well enough. When you further claim that "idiomaticity" refers to "coveying meaning", that suggests very poor knowledge of CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I would much rather have other things to do than dealing with RFD nominations created by people who contribute close to nothing of value to Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
What is your purpose here then? Using RFD to examine CFI's merits, whether to apply it or ignore it, or god forbid actually change it, seems fine with me. There's nothing wrong with using RFD as a means to take a closer look at it.
Re: "Of course, I would much rather have other things to do than dealing with RFD nominations created by people who contribute close to nothing of value to Wiktionary." That is your opinion and your choice, I have respected that. If you insinuate I have not contributed constructively to Wiktionary, that is close to a personal attack and I would ask you to voice that opinion on the RFD discussion rather than here on my talkpage, where I am free to remove to remove at my discretion. I believe that I've contributed my fair share of English entries as well as Vietnamese translations, which you can check if you'd like. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit counters show you have contributed very little, yet you are busy clarifying CFI by making RFD nominations. I for one find that annoying. When that is combined with poor understanding of CFI and faulty arguing about "idiomatic" with no "I stand corrected", the annoyance is amplified. Your user name tops it all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you just choose not to participate in the discussion? I'm certain any unproblematic entries meeting CFI would be voted to be kept by other participants. I still don't see how RFD can break Wiktionary in any way. It's the same deal given to you when you nominated apple at RFV.
Edit counters are not everything. They only show the quantity of my work, not its quality, which I find severely lacking on this dictionary. But perhaps it is the nature of a wiki where everyone can edit that quantity naturally supersedes quality. It also neglects to show deleted edits, most of which I have made RC patrolling. Perhaps I'm wasting my time increasing it bit by bit responding to you now?
Unfortunately I chose this name at a time when most usernames had been taken by SUL, and for fear of breaking any backlinks to my name I'd rather keep this than have a rename or edit under a different name. Most other people do not bother to complain about it. Do you use your real name and prefer others do the same? For me, it is no. And besides, the username or how you address me is irrelevant so long as the message is communicated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Consider things like great-great-great-grandfather at the RFD discussion nominated by Connel MacKenzie and the recent RFD/RFV nominations by WikiTiki, though they seem idiomatic to you. The arguments presented at those discussions initially did not cite CFI, but pointed to problems with how we handle words using CFI. Would you consider them annoying as well? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)