Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Mixed script Mandarin entries

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

Mixed script Mandarin entries[edit]

  • Voting on:
  1. That an entry for a term which is written partly in hanzi and partly in another script (for example, "Planck常数") be allowed only when we have an entry for a traditional- or simplified-character form of the term (for example, "普朗克常数" or "普朗克常數").
  2. That an entry for a such a term (written partly in hanzi and partly in another script) contain only an explanation of the use of the term, and the modicum of information needed to allow readers to reach the traditional- or the simplified-character entry, whichever is appropriate (for example, "Planck常数" is to link to "普朗克常数", not to "普朗克常數").
  3. That an exception be made for terms (such as "卡拉OK", "α粒子", 三K黨 / 三K党, etc.) which are written partly in hanzi and partly in another script, but which are standard in that form; terms being deemed standard if they are in durably-archived Chinese dictionaries.


  • Vote starts: 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support ---> Tooironic 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support JamesjiaoTC 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Hbrug 22:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support -- I don't really understand the provisions of #2 above, the bit about linking to simplified versus traditional. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This fixes something which isn't broken to begin with. Attestation rules can handle this just fine, we do not need anything else. -- Liliana 19:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    Attestation rules when used to prove the existence of mixed language just show that some Chinese know some English or Roman letters or that they DO mix languages at times (not to confuse with mixed script words like 三K党). When Chinese people write a person's name or a city name entirely in Roman letters, the word doesn't become Mandarin, even if they attach it to another Chinese word, like "Planck" + 常数 or "Alzheimer" + . This vote is not to ban them completely anyway but to link to a proper Mandarin entry. --Anatoli 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    I do not agree. Code-switching, like what I do sometimes, is not to be confused with standard usage. JamesjiaoTC 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, Jamesjiao, which part or whose statement do you disagree with? --Anatoli 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, Jamesjiao, would you please clarify by telling us what exactly you don't agree with? It is very unclear. 71.66.97.228 06:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dan Polansky 10:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC). This proposal seems to replace the attestation criterion with reference to dictionaries, as point 1 of the proposal has point 3 as an exception, and point 3 relies on dictionaries. Wiktionary has the practice of rejecting dictionaries as ultimate evidence, other than for the sake of etymologies; there is even Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, a list of terms that are excluded from the main namespace in spite of being found in dictionaries, sometimes in as many as 8 dictionaries. I think that the existing attestation criterion serves well. For more, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-10/Mixed script Mandarin entries#Dan's feedback. --Dan Polansky 10:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This seems like heavy-handed solution to the problem of one particular editor's contributions, which admittedly are taking up a lot of others' time. However, I agree with the above point about using attestation as opposed to relying on other dictionaries. Also I feel that some valid entries are likely to be deleted by these rules, for example compounds containing Q#Mandarin, which wouldn't have any redirect target. I don't think the current arrangement is perfect, and with more examples and discussion I hope better ways can be found to distinguish code-switching from native (if non-standard) Chinese. Fugyoo 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    If Chinese slang is your only concern, you don't need to worry. Mandarin terms in Roman letters and in mixed script created by Chinese are safe, e.g. 3qorz or 三Q, including those created by "one particular editor", like 妈你的B. --Anatoli 06:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Anatoli, why exactly is "3qorz" safe, where by "safe" I understand "includable in Wiktionary if the proposed regulation is accepted"? That is to say, in which durably archived dictionaries is "3qorz" found? Is one dictionary enough ("[...] terms being deemed standard if they are in durably-archived Chinese dictionaries")? You have argued that native Chinese speakers do not know how to pronounce "Planck常数"; do you say that native Chinese speakers know how to pronounce "3qorz"? Furthermore, "3qorz" does not even appear attested, so do you say that it should be included in spite of its not being attested, only because it is found in dictionaries? --Dan Polansky 07:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    "3qorz" is created by Chinese because of its shape, not the sound, as explained in the etymology. Although the vote doesn't specifically says so, no Chinese speaking editor is targeting these entries. Some entries, like 3qorz, 戇Q may need more effort to stay here but as I said, no one is targeting these entries. Citations for 卡拉OK have been provided - and it wasn't targeted as Chinglish - it's the only way to say "karaoke" in Mandarin. The main purpose, as you know, is to prevent entries where a proper name or a full word is written in Roman, not Chinese characters, like "London", "pizza", "bacon", "Planck常数" or "Alzheimer病". A foreigner would have big trouble communicating in China with Chinese people not knowing any English but overseas mix Mandarin with English or other languages. This vote will allow to keep entries like Planck常数 or Alzheimer病, rather than banning them altogether - as was the wish of most Chinese speaking editors, under the condition that the proper and by far the most commonly understood Mandarin word is created first. --Anatoli 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    In this vote, it does not matter what terms you are "targetting" as worthy of deletion; what matters is what the proposed wording of the vote actually does. Your promises that you are not going to send entries for deletion have no bearing on whether the proposed regulation is a good one. Again, "the main purpose" of the vote does not matter; what matters is the actual effect of the wording of the vote. Good intentions do not safe bad measures from being bad. On another note, you have left most my questions unanswered: no dictionaries with "3qorz" have been provided; no discussion of whether "3qorz" is attested and what that means for the inclusion of "3qorz". --Dan Polansky 08:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    The vote wording is not perfect as it was done under pressure of flood of mixed language entries. I will answer the most important question - there are some dictionaries that include Mandarin slang, including some words entirely in Roman letters or in mixed script, HSK covers 卡拉OK and AA制, some Latin abbreviations, OK#Mandarin is also included in standard textbooks and is part of 卡拉OK. These words are considered part of Mandarin by Chinese people, so even if we may not immediately find a dictionary entry for them, they are not "targeted" by Sinophone wiktionarians just for the sake of deletion, some were created here by native Chinese speakers. I haven't seen "3qorz" in a dictionary myself but I've seen similar slang words. The difference between "AA制" and "Alzheimer病" is that the latter is not considered part of Mandarin by Chinese people, hence this vote. Words like "AA制" get included in dictionaries as well, sooner or later. As I said, with some effort, most words in Category:Mandarin terms written in multiple scripts (as of today) can be found in standard or slang dictionaries. User:A-cai or User:Tooironic might be able to provide some more info on some of the entries in this category. --Anatoli 09:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    Thank you for your input on the presence of terms in dictionaries. I contend that there is no pressure, and that we do not need to accept substantially bad wording ("imperfect" is an understatement), one that gives up the descriptivist principles of English Wiktionary, replacing them with reliance on dictionaries. Flooding of Wiktionary by Engirst (talkcontribs) aka 123abc (talkcontribs) can be prevented by accepting a simple procedural principle, as I have proposed: 'A term that contains Latin letters and is marked as "Mandarin" can be speedy deleted without RFV process unless the citations namespace of the entry already contains attesting citations.' In fact, admins can start acting on that principle immediately and without a vote, as long as no one opposes. --Dan Polansky 10:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think it's that easy. The perfect wording is hard to find because administrators without Chinese skills may delete entries, which are perfectly accepted as Chinese. 123abc found citations for "Planck常数" but nobody agreed, forcing to create two votes, he was the reason for the pinyin vote as well. Not sure editors will agree to sacrifice valid and good Mandarin entries just to keep 123abc at bay. Perhaps no pressure right now but the gap is too short to be sure. --Anatoli 10:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    The mixed-script Chinese entries that are considered perfectly accepted by Chinese would have to be cited to be included; when cited, they would not be deleted. But their being attested is what WT:CFI requires anyway; the only difference is that, under the current practice, questionable entries without citations are sent to RFV rather than deleted straight away. For a discussion on this proposed procedural rule, see Wiktionary:BP#Vote on banning Latin-containing Mandarin, October 2011. In that discussion, several people seemed to support the rule. --Dan Polansky 10:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yair rand 11:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Weakly oppose per Dan P.​—msh210 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Dan P. does not have to deal with these Chinese entries. It appears that all of the editors who deal with Chinese entries want this rule, and everyone who opposes it does not know Chinese and does not work with Chinese entries. —Stephen (Talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Re: "[...] does not know Chinese and does not work with Chinese entries": this seems to be a fallacy of irrelevance known as ad hominem. These Chinese entries--as far as attested--do not really present any problem for a descriptivist dictionary. Some of the people who know Chinese and work with Chinese and support the rules are native Chinese speakers and prescriptivists, which is no surprise given the current culture and political regime in China. If the regulation of Czech entries in English Wiktionary is left to Czechs, chances are you end up with continental prescriptivism in English Wiktionary. What matters is not who knows Chinese and who does not, but rather what principles come to bear, whether prescriptivism or lexicographical descriptivism characteristic of English lexicography. --Dan Polansky 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    It's not ad hominem: it's saying that infamiliarity breeds undeveloped opinions.​—msh210 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Besides, some languages and some cultures are more prescriptive than English currently is. Not too long ago, English and English-speakers were pretty prescriptivist. Spanish is a somewhat prescriptive language, since it is controlled by a recognized authority (the RAE). I think such details are usually best understood by the editors who do the work in a given language. —Stephen (Talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think that Spanish entries in English Wiktionary should be governed by a Spanish authority. I support that entries in all languages in English Wiktionary should be governed by the principles of descriptivist lexicography, regardless of whether the language in question has a regulatory body. What was the case not long ago has no bearing; the age of descriptivist lexicography has finally arrived, at least in English dictionaries. If Spanish editors of English Wiktionary decide to make Spanish entries of English Wiktionary prescriptivist, I am going to oppose, rather than leaving the matter to "experts", whose experthood has no bearing on the matter at hand. --Dan Polansky 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    The Spanish editors pay heed to the directives of the RAE. I think the Spanish part of Wiktionary would become completely worthless if we accepted entries like we do for English. Moreover, it would taint the entire project. It is necessary to submit Spanish to the will of the RAE. Latin is also rather tightly controlled, and French is, too. Every language is different, and the editors that work with each language have different problems and different solutions, and it is a huge mistake to try to treat every other language just like we do English. —Stephen (Talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    I did not know that there is a group of languages of English Wiktionary that is exempt from WT:CFI and its WT:ATN. Does what you say have any basis in CFI? Has a Spanish entry been deleted because of RAE? I still think it is a poor practice (rather than the rherotical "huge mistake") to delete entries of non-English languages because they are not approved by language authorities. --Dan Polansky 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, Spanish entries that are not in line with the RAE may be deleted. More often, they are corrected and moved. On occasion, they might be marked as incorrect, if it is a very common thing, but I don’t remember a case like this. I don’t think any Spanish editor would ever be willing to ignore the RAE. If we started making entries against the RAE, we would gain a reputation for unacceptably bad Spanish and it would hurt the entire project. —Stephen (Talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    Re: "Yes, Spanish entries that are not in line with the RAE may be deleted": Says who? Any BP discussion on that? (There is no vote on this, AFAIK.) Again, is there a single Spanish entry that has actually been deleted, and if so, which entry is it? --Dan Polansky 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    No, no BP discussion. Says who? Says the RAE. There is no vote because it is a feature of the language. Deleted entries go back at least eight or ten years. You would have to search the deletion logs. This is another example of something that you can’t understand sufficiently unless you study the language for a couple of years. It is impossible to explain it to you so that you can understand it unless you first learn Spanish. —Stephen (Talk) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    This is way off the topic of this vote page, but we have English entries that are in no major print dictionary because they're too new, too slangy, too misspelled, or too regional. How do we deal with such in Spanish? (Or are even such terms in the DRAE?)​—msh210 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    (after edit conflict) Oh, really, so RAE says that Wiktionary should obey RAE, right? I don't think they do, but even if they did, it is a decision of the editors of English Wiktionary whether to delete terms absent in a RAE dictionary, not RAE's decision. Now you are also telling me that I first need to understand a particular language such as Spanish in order to understand what a language regulatory body is and what lexicographical prescriptivism is. Guess what, I don't. I live in a country that has a regulatory body, and I see Czechs coming to English Wiktionary telling us that various forms should better be deleted or proscribed because they are not in the regulatory dictionary. In any case, I hope your prescriptivist stance has little support in English Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 18:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, RAE requires any dictionary maker to obey the RAE. If you want to make a Spanish dictionary that ignores the RAE, you will have to make it yourself, because Spanish editors will not do it.
    Spanish has slang, which we include, but subject to the rules of the RAE. Different Spanish-speaking countries have some different definitions for some words, and include different borrowed words from various Indian languages, which can be included subject to the RAE rules. It is acceptable to include deprecated spellings, marked as such and linked to the approved spellings, but I don’t think any of the editors are adding such words. A few Spanish words were recently deprecated by the RAE, but I don’t recall what they were. They were kept, marked deprecated, and linked to the approved spelling. I recall that the defective verb abolir was recently changed by the RAE and we made significant changes to the entry to conform to the RAE ruling. We don’t enter most Spanish misspellings, because there are vast numbers and they are misspelled for different reasons. Spanish Wiktionary works in quite the same way. It is unthinkable to make a Spanish dictionary while ignoring the RAE. —Stephen (Talk) 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    From what I can see, your "we include" talk has no basis in a community decision. What you are describing is, possibly, your practice and practice of some other unnamed editors. You have provided not a single BP discussion, not a single deleted Spanish entry, and not a single talk page of a user or an entry. WT:CFI does not support what you say about what "we do". Your "we" refers to the mythical community, which, in the absence of a traceable public process, turns out to be a small group of oligarchs, who tell other people "what we do". --Dan Polansky 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    We refers to all educated Spanish editors. No, no BP discussions, because, as you yourself demonstrate, you have to know Spanish to understand the situation with Spanish. When we discuss, it is only with Spanish-speaking editors. One example of a change in come into line with the RAE is here (the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas is part of the RAE). —Stephen (Talk) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Not only is there no BP discussion; there is also no discussion on user talk pages. Thus, whatever agreement you could have reached with those other "educated" Spanish editors, it must have been off-wiki, I guess. Template talk:es-conj-ir (abolir) that you have just linked to contains not a discussion but rather a single post by you from April 2011. And you could spare me the "you need to know Spanish vocabulary and grammar in order to meaningfully discuss inclusion criteria of Spanish" fallacy; it is as implausible as anything. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    I believe I said no BP discussions are held. In fact, I think I repeated it several times. —Stephen (Talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    And I said--and that was the point--that no other discussions have been held either. From what I can see, it is you who wants to impose prescriptivism on Spanish entries in English Wiktionary. You can prove me wrong by providing relevant links to the wiki. --Dan Polansky 19:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    No, you can prove yourself wrong. Try to talk some other Spanish editors into ignoring the rulings of the RAE. —Stephen (Talk) 19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    RAE is not a representative or democratic organization. It has absolutely no jurisdiction over Wiktionary nor most of the Spanish speaking world. Only in Spain does it regulate language in an official capacity, and even there it has no legal authority. Are you really suggesting that anyone could be subject to the whims of this body on no other grounds than the utterance of a Spanish phrase? Your naive faith is blinding. DAVilla 00:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    Months later: registración has been sent to RFD as a Spanish word that is not approved by Royal Spanish Academy; the nominator claims that "this isn't a word". The results of the RFD will be available at Talk:registración. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg This is a prescriptive rule, pure and simple. I know China is pretty heavy-handed on "its" languages, but this is a descriptive dictionary no matter how pervasive that sentiment is among Chinese speakers. Strong oppose item 1, oppose item 3, weak oppose item 2 though it would be fine if more care were taken to ensure that the terms were in fact identical and that there would be a preference only if one (not necessarily the unmixed variation) was predominant in all regions and contexts. DAVilla 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Can I just ask a question rather than officially abstaining? What would happen to an entry like 傻B under this rule? Is it in durably-archived Chinese dictionaries? Fugyoo 00:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

傻B is a Chinese invention, a slang term, same as the "official" form: 傻屄. It may be harder to find the citations for some slang words but I don't know any Chinese editors who are pushing to remove ALL words containing Roman letters, like AA制, only when it's a mixed language. There was only one editor who wanted to force entries like "Hyde公园" (you know who). --Anatoli 01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
傻B is citable, so I don't see any problem there.
But these rules don't go by citations, they go by presence in dictionaries. It seems like there is a lot of potential for collateral damage. Fugyoo 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As you know, the vote is a product to prevent mixed language and Chinglish entries and may not be perfect, not Chinese slang or to eliminate mixed script terms altogether. Some collateral is possible, if a term is hard to verify in dictionaries but there is no pressure to delete all Mandarin terms containing Roman or Greek letters. The worst case scenario, 傻B can work as a soft redirect to 傻屄, like Planck常数 is for 普朗克常数. --Anatoli 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Decision[edit]

  • Fails 7–6 (54%).​—msh210 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)