Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit: difference between revisions

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Go to previous editGo to next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Support: Support
Line 35: Line 35:
#::Seriously? I've gone to the effort of going through one page of voting and found nothing relevant there. If you want to point out specific arguments, you're going to have to meet me half way. [[User:Pengo|Pengo]] ([[User talk:Pengo|talk]]) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
#::Seriously? I've gone to the effort of going through one page of voting and found nothing relevant there. If you want to point out specific arguments, you're going to have to meet me half way. [[User:Pengo|Pengo]] ([[User talk:Pengo|talk]]) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
#{{support}} As long as this is the English Wiktionary, and we assume that most of our contributors can't read other scripts and only have access to Latin input tools, it makes sense for usability's sake to be pretty liberal with romanizations. The RFV of [[maha]]/[[mahā]] found plenty of unglossed quotations of Sanskrit written in the Latin alphabet, so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that a user will come across Sanksrit words and want to know what they mean. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
#{{support}} As long as this is the English Wiktionary, and we assume that most of our contributors can't read other scripts and only have access to Latin input tools, it makes sense for usability's sake to be pretty liberal with romanizations. The RFV of [[maha]]/[[mahā]] found plenty of unglossed quotations of Sanskrit written in the Latin alphabet, so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that a user will come across Sanksrit words and want to know what they mean. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
# {{support}} See [[Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Software_alternative?]]. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


==== Oppose ====
==== Oppose ====

Revision as of 18:51, 7 April 2015

Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit

  • Voting on: That whenever citations can be provided showing that a romanization of a Sanskrit word is well-attested in a string of transliterated Sanskrit text (used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years; see, e.g. [1], [2]), we allow an entry for that romanization consisting of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry.
  • Rationale: This differs from the previous vote, which would have allowed romanizations of all attested Sanskrit words, irrespective of whether the romanizations themselves were attested. This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word. This will allow definitions to be created for words (or things that a reader would reasonably expect to be words) that an English-speaking reader might reasonably be expected to encounter while reading English-language materials containing strings of romanized Sanskrit text, while preventing the creation of definitions for unattested romanizations.

Support

  1. Support as nom. bd2412 T 20:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support (conditionally) Bowing to pressure and evidence provided that Sanskrit romanisation is used. My condition: only IAST romanisation and only as soft redirects to Devanagari entries, all entry info (definitions, pronunciations, synonyms, example sentences, etc.) should be in the Devanagari entries, just like Mandarin pinyin and Japanese rōmaji entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Other than for the "modicum" part, this is our current CFI (WT:CFI#Attestation) as I understand it. I see no added value for the user of the dictionary in disallowing attestation of transliterations beyond the current CFI.

    I am slightly confused by the following: "This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word." I do not support that attesting quotations must be in the entry before the entry is created; attestation of transliterated text should work the same way as attestation of native-script text.

    On yet another note, this vote proposes to explicitly allow modicum entries; I do not see the vote anywhere disallowing non-modicum entries. I surmise it to be the current CFI to allow even fuller entries than modicum ones, for attested transliterations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  4. Support having Rōmaji-style entries for all attested transliterations of Sanskrit. (@Atitarev How about tagging non-IAST transliterations {{lb|sa|nonstandard}}?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If we decide to start allowing entries for romanizations, then it will make sense to tag the nonstandard ones, yes — but probably with a dedicated tag like {{lb|sa|nonstandard romanization}} (which could display "nonstandard") or better yet a dedicated template like {{nonstandard romanization of}}, so that the entries can be categorized differently from terms that are nonstandard in the 'usual' way. Templates would presumably also be needed for e.g. Hunterian transliterations and other non-IAST standards. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @-sche: That seems sensible. I'd support such a practice. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support As these transliterated forms are attested, it's not so much a question of whether they should be included, but how, and that shouldn't come into consideration for this vote. None of the objections so far have said anything except to defer to previous votes. Previous objections were that there might be development of "reverse transliteration modules" to aid search -- this is irrelevant for this vote, as it ignores the change in this poll, namely that is only for attested forms. It also assumes future technology, when in reality Wiktionary code development is particularly slow (e.g. you still can't even search by language). Another previous objection was that there would be an explosion of entries with transliterations for Sanskrit in multiple scripts: "Sanskrit is written in a hell of a lot of scripts". Again this is rendered irrelevant by the requirement for attestation. Another objection was against bot-generated transliterations. Again, not relevant. So, the objectors who are simply deferring to previous votes really need to expand their arguments. I've only gone through Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization_of_Sanskrit, but none of the objections made there appear to be relevant for this vote, so please point to specific arguments if you object. Pengo (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you've read the talkpages? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? I've gone to the effort of going through one page of voting and found nothing relevant there. If you want to point out specific arguments, you're going to have to meet me half way. Pengo (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support As long as this is the English Wiktionary, and we assume that most of our contributors can't read other scripts and only have access to Latin input tools, it makes sense for usability's sake to be pretty liberal with romanizations. The RFV of maha/mahā found plenty of unglossed quotations of Sanskrit written in the Latin alphabet, so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that a user will come across Sanksrit words and want to know what they mean. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Software_alternative?. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per the previous vote. Wyang (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Wyang. --Vahag (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Vahag. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Dijan (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. Abstain I like this idea from the perspective of users who are trying to find a romanized Sanskrit word found in either a religious text or dictionary but who are not familiar with or are incapable of typing in Devanagiri. On the other hand, even the IAST cannot be easily typed into a search bar, which defeats the purpose of that argument. —JohnC5 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You type maha, and at the top, on the "See also:" row, you'll find mahā. So ease of typing should not be an issue for a person who can type Latin letters used in English. (Works for Czech as well; if a person can only type kocka, they can click kočka at the top of the entry.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That only works though if the page without diacritics already exists and has a See also, neither of which is always the case. Regardless I can understand both arguments quite well and cannot make up my mind. —JohnC5 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming the diacritic-free pages will not eventually exist, learning to enter these diacritics is much easier than to enter a script with which one is entirely unfamiliar. And the search for the non-existing diacritic-free page would presumably turn up the page with diacritics near the top of the search results. Or even, when I enter "tuzka" into the search box and press "Go", Wiktionary takes me to "tužka"; similary for "muska" and "muška". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I still feel too strongly in both directions to choose. Thanks for the clarification, though. —JohnC5 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit&oldid=32476251"