@Wyang: Thanks for fixing the definitions for the entry. Very informative, indeed!
I'm not sure the new L3 header "Definitions" will get accepted, though. It may get picked up by the autoformat or other administrators. It has to be agreed on or split into PoS. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- It brings a lot more clarity to hanzi entries, and enables us to do the editing a lot easier. We should argue for it, like what we did for unified Chinese. :)
- (btw, I have other ideas regarding Chinese entries, such as introducing the idea of lemma forms, so that information is all kept centralised and the trad-simp entries do not have to be synchronised. Currently the supposedly established practice of synchronisation is poorly maintained, from what I observe from my bot's sweeping edits. Conceivably the lemma forms should be traditional, since trad-to-simp conversion can be performed reasonably reliably. It's not because I discriminate against simp; I grew up with those characters too. That way we could just enable automatic trad-to-simp conversion in zh-usex, and all the information on the page (with the minor exception of the title) would be di-scripted.) Wyang (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let me think about his :) I don't want to completely abandon PoS for Chinese. BTW, Pleco dictionary DOES use PoS, despite what I sent you before, but skips mentioning when PoS is clear. Re: your idea. I know how Chinese Wiktionary makes just one version - traditional/simplified and users can select in their preferences, which they prefer but I have no idea about how good the result is going to be. Anyway, throw your ideas in Beer Parlour with a demo later, invite other editors but let's finish the merger first. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)