User talk:Badagnani

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RE: Kumquat thanks[edit]

I'm also new to Wiktionary, so I don't really know how to format entries. You can take a look at 统一码 for some ideas. Gerard Foley 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


For the lost "t" in "金橘". I'd like you not to think ill of the change, as it is just an attempt to have the format conform to various standards here. Plus: I can't tell for certain if 柑橘 in the "Alternative forms" section is ok or not, guessing that it should possibly be "See also", etc. Please don't hesitate to correct it if you feel it is inappropriate. -Tohru 01:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


The alternate form given for this character seems to be no different than the original form. Is this a mistake?

I have deleted this from the article, if you see something like this again just change it, leave a note of it in the edit summary. Gerard Foley 20:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The Chinese characters were added automatically a few years ago and most have not had significant changes made to them. If you have Microsoft Word, you can check if the characters are the same. Copy/Paste both characters into Microsoft Word, then with the cursor to the right of one of the characters press Alt+X. This will give you the Unicode number for the character. For example: 梁 is 6881. Gerard Foley 20:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello again,
I don't know much Japanese, if you want to know if a Japanese word is correct you can ask User:Tohru or look it up at Can I ask what languages you can speak? Maybe you can add the list to your user page. Gerard Foley 22:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the Japanese aspect of the title characters and the content, and found no problem. Along the way I added a link to a corresponding Wikipedia article. --Tohru 07:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I overlooked the scientific name: 柚子 is Citrus junos, not Citrus aurantium (橙, daidai) in Japanese. I've done the correction. --Tohru 07:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
→ I've not known what Citrus junos or Citrus aurantium is until 30 minute ago. I'll definitely follow you in this area :) --Tohru 08:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I added the babel template to your user page, Hope you don't mind. Gerard Foley 01:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up Chinese / Japanese entries[edit]

Hi there! One of my tasks is to tidy up entries that are not formatted properly. I have special difficulty with Chinese, Japanese and other such entries. If you have time, could you look at User talk:Connel MacKenzie/todo3 where there is a computer-generated list of entries that need help. I am slowly working my way through it, but help with the above would be appreciated. Cheers SemperBlotto 16:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


User:Milliehandshrimp has re-added the extra lines to this. A dissucssion started at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Four dashes about these lines. If you want to see them gone you should add a comment to the bottom. Thanks, Gerard Foley 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Verify reasoning for revert of 高梁[edit]

Badagnani, I'm not sure if you have read Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#cross_indexing_Asian_languages. I have based my entries to the Chinese language section on the feedback received from various Wiktionarions.

  1. It looks like your primary objective was to restore the etymology section. I don't object to that. The reason that I originally removed it was because I felt at the time that the same information could be obtained by clicking the links to the individual characters and , which are placed just after the "part of speech" line. I have only been putting in etymologies where the individual characters by themselves do not shed light on the meaning (for example, see: 大意失荊州)
  2. The romanization section that you restored does not follow the consensus that was agreed upon in the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#cross_indexing_Asian_languages. One person objected to the use of "pronunciation" as a subheader. I can tell you that I took out the Cantonese part because it looks odd to have it there without a romanization.
  3. Also, you deleted one of the definitions for the entry. Was this intentional? If so, I must tell you that the definition you erased (kaoliang) is a well established use of this term.
  4. I have been separating entries by Simplified and Traditional in the hopes that all entries will go into either one or the other, or both (e.g. Chinese nouns (Simplified) and Chinese nouns (Traditional), but not straight to Chinese nouns). The Simplified is based on Pinyin order, whereas the Traditional is based on radical stroke order. I feel this is important, because not many native speakers mix and match. A person from Hong Kong or Taiwan would typically go to the Traditional section, whereas a person from the PRC would most likely prefer to use the Simplified section. Actually, our lives in this regard would be much less complicated if we simply had a tab at the top for Simplified and Traditional as is the case on the Chinese version of Wiktionary (zh:Wiktionary) The right most tabs are for Simplified (简体) and Traditional (繁体).

I will hold off taking any action on this entry for now. I would first like to hear your thoughts. A-cai 09:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

more on kaoliang[edit]


A-cai 12:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mandarin noun template[edit]

Fixed. Robert Ullmann 04:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


We don't redirect romanizations to entries; they either get proper entries or not. Redirects are very seldom used in the wikt. Robert Ullmann 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well what I am talking abou! Entry at jīnjú is now a proper entry for the Mandarin pinyin form. We DO NOT redirect forms. Entry at jinju is to be deleted, it is not the pinyin spelling, not a proper entry or redirect. Robert Ullmann 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, for being too forceful. By way of explanation, there are a lot of people who come here from Wikipedia (in itself, a very good thing) and take no time at all to understand that the wikt is NOT Wikipedia. So this is a hot-button ...
We don't use redirects here between words! Redirects are used in very, very limited ways, to bring together variant capitalizations, or work around limitations in (for example) the rendering of Arabic script. Even in that case, we would usually use see-also: we will not be redirecting Jinju (the city) to or from jinju (kumquat, without the diacritics). They both get real entries!
again, I apologize for snapping at you Robert Ullmann 14:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
okay ... so understand redirects don't and can't work here the way they do in the 'pedia; we put a lot more significance in the page title, it being the "headword" of the defintion. The 'pedia can take "da Vinci" convert it to the (utterly incorrect) "Da Vinci" and then redirect to w:Leonardo da Vinci; we can't do that. Consider what happens at (say) a or an.
A lot of pinyin/POJ/jyutping might be unambiguouly redirected, but a lot won't, since they overload in different languages. (and not just Chinese languages by any means!) So we need the equivalent of a disambiguation page: the way we do that is with a simple, but fully formatted, entry. That way when the 2nd or 3rd or 14th language comes along that has an entry at that spelling, it just gets added.
For Chinese languages and Japanese, the convention is that the full entry is at the Hanzi/Kanji entry. For Korean, typically at the Hangul entry (not the Hanja, since that is used much less often). So a rōmaji entry for a verb will not have the conjugation table; for an adjective it identifies the declension, but doesn't have the declension table, and so on. Robert Ullmann 15:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: if you go to WT:PREFS and check the top box (use prefs on that page), and then the box for "Allow special characters to be input input the search box" (yes, that needs editing), then underneath the go/search box you can select "Pinyin" (just like below the page edit box), and use it to enter characters. Robert Ullmann 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So you create an entry: jinju (and Jinju) Robert Ullmann 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Badagnani, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse. I'm not trying to knock Cantonese, nor do I fail to realize the possibility that 表演 very likely has a valid pronunciation in Cantonese. But since neither one of us actually speak Cantonese, we have no idea what that pronunciation might be. Granted, you have cited an on-line resource, and I agree that it is probably correct. However, we don't know that it is correct; because it is not a language that either you or I speak. However, you did cite a valid source, and that is a good thing (especially since, you have no other way of attesting to its validity).

The problem that I am having is this. I don't think your edits to 表演 have improved the quality of Wiktionary. I could have typed "表演 Cantonese" into Google and obtained more information about the use of 表演 in Cantonese (including the Romanization) than what you just now put into Wiktionary (hit number six, when I did the search[1][2]).

At the very least, the format does not conform to the guidelines that about a half dozen or more Wiktionarians have ironed out over the last three or four months. The results of those discussions have resulted in semi-official guidelines that are explained in WT:AC#What is the proper way to make an entry for a Chinese word?. They are an extension of the more generic guidelines found at WT:ELE.

Let me make one thing clear at this point. My intention is not to beat up on you over one silly entry. Rather, I am trying to give you an idea of my overall approach as of late. I have been attempting to create a certain level of consistency for all of the Chinese words in Wiktionary. Note that 表演 starts with a b. So do all of the following words, which I have recently formatted (I created over half of them from scratch) according to the same consistent look and feel (this look and feel being the product of the above mentioned discussions with a number of other Wiktionarians):


Finally, I hope I'm not coming off as being too negative or stubborn. What I'm after is verifiability (if that's a word) of the information (cited source, or an established track record as a fluent speaker who has made a number of good entries, or both), formatting consistency and completeness of information. If language experts look at Wiktionary entries and are under whelmed because of their poor quality, they're not apt to hang around for very long (which is why I suspect that I toil away month after month with very little help, I have been told as much by several other bilingual friends).

Now that I have that off my chest, I realize that you very well may disagree with me about the above points. If so, perhaps it is time to start a debate on Wiktionary:Beer parlor, so that we don't keep driving each other crazy month after month :) Please let me know your thoughts. A-cai 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Please explain what you think you are doing with this vandalism edit. --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Such an edit looks in every way like vandalism. Since you are an establish contributor, perhaps it is not? --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. My apologies for throwing out the "v-word." Please understand, that as Wiktionary entries are progressively standardized, removing inflection templates is very unhelpful.
Amending the template (with discussion and consensus) of course is the better approach. Simply breaking entries so they can't be uniformly reformatted helps no one. In that light, the individual edit appeared to be disruptive (actually, much worse.)
The entry, as it stands now, is defective. Please undo that damage. Then please initiate a discussion on the template's talk page.
--Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If it really is a personal problem, then widening the audience will help de-personalize the issues at hand. I have found the contributor I think you are referring to, to be quite reasonable, regarding change requests. So, if I understood what you need (or would like) I may be able to help. Template discussions can often be handled in Grease pit, or on the talk page of the template itself. If of wider concern, it can go to (the overwhelmed) Beer parlour. --Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't go around adding "Style" to entries. We use bulleted lines under specific headings with specific meanings. Bullets under POS headers are citations. "Style" is a meaningless term, it would be script or script form. The preferred way we show the script forms is in the POS templates and with {{zh-forms}} and {{zh-hanzi}}. Robert Ullmann 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out four days ago: this information is in the template(s); if you feel that it needs to be highlighted there are the table templates I mentioned in the previous paragraph. We know you know about them, you have used them. If you attempt to re-introduce the non-standard NanshuBot cruft, it will be treated as willful vandalism. If you have an issue with the standards, bring it up on Beer Parlour and then comply with the community decision. Robert Ullmann 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The templates for Chinese languages, as well as the other removal of the cruft created by User:NanshuBot were done during and after extensive discussions on WT:BP over a period of months. The format is being brought into line with the WT:ELE and related style standards.
You have been told several times to use the standard templates {{zh-hanzi}} and {{zh-forms}} (also {{ja-forms}}) if you feel that the forms are insufficiently visible, but instead you re-insert the Nanshu cruft without discussing it.
None of these are "pronunciation" templates; I don't know how to assist you out of that level of confusion. Robert Ullmann 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See this entry where someone else fixed your change to do it properly. This is how we do it, as you have been told repeatedly. Use the {{zh-hanzi}} and {{zh-forms}} templates to highlight that information as I keep explaining. Robert Ullmann 15:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry if my tone shows my exasperation, but you just started stuffing NanshuBot cruft (and unreliable cruft at that) back into pages without discussing whether some improvements could be made. See my talk page. Robert Ullmann 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yale romanization of hanja[edit]

You've noticed that Nanshu got some of these wrong, I see. The problem is that the "y" is consistantly on the wrong side of the vowel. (How he managed this, I will never know!) If no one had fixed any of them, it would be simple 'bot work to fix, but it is going to be a bit more complicated! Robert Ullmann 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation Project[edit]

Hello, I'd like to tell you about the Spanish Translation Project that is currently being worked on.

We are looking for contributors of any level, to help out with the project.

If you are interested, please take a moment and look at the page, and leave any comments or suggestions regarding the project.

Thanks. Bearingbreaker92 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)