Category talk:Westrobothnian lemmas

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Category talk:Westrobothnian language

RFD discussion: December 2016–March 2017[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Failed this RFV, author admitted to have invented the spelling on his own here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really guaranteed to be nothing attestable in the entire category? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been attested in two 1,5 months despite RFV. Every single entry is in the idiosyncratic spelling too. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you that this matter should be resolved as a general policy on WT:BP, as WT contains a number of languages containing made-up spelling, because they are traditionally unwritten languages. You could ask User:Knyȝt explicitly about the existence of the Westrobothnian words, but that wasn't your original complaint, which makes me assume that you aren't really interested in constructive dialogue. As far as I can see, his sources are at least Svenskt Dialektlexikon and Ordbok över Umemålet. The SD is online, and Westrobothnian terms are written in a made-up phonetic spelling there.
What's your beef with Westrobothnian? You don't really seem make such a fuss with other unwritten languages with made-up spellings, let's say, Category:ǃKung lemmas, is it because you just don't give a shit about some African bushman language?
few days ago (saw it today) you were writing "nobody is taking care of your noble endeavours to move these to other spellings or bring this up in Beer Parlour, these entries confirmed to not be verifiable by the author are just sitting on our page with a status which qualifies for a deletion." well, pull your finger out of your ass then and discuss some consitent policy on the subject, instead of just wasting time whining. You can go fuck yourself. I'm not interested in anymore discussion on this subject. Do whatever pleases you. smfh... --80.63.3.167 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for admins: I'll probably be banned for this, but it's okay since I don't have any further comments in this case.
No one's going to ban you for stating an opinion. The issue is whether these orthographies are attestable, even as a single mention (since Westrobothnian is an LDL) in a single published source. If these are the spellings used in Svenskt Dialektlexikon and/or Ordbok över Umemålet, then they shouldn't be deleted. But if these spellings are really not used anywhere except Wiktionary because they were invented by the Wiktionary editor who created them, then they should. Our !Kung spellings are, to the best of my knowledge, the same as those used in dictionaries and linguistics articles about !Kung, and are thus not made-up spellings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Chuck would have them moved to existing spellings instead of deletion:Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas - Nobody knowledgeable in the language took any action, however. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of deleting them now. Obviously if any spelling can be verified by presence in a reference work or in running text, I'll be happy to undelete it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all Westrobothnian entries have been deleted (or removed from pages with valid entries in other languages). I couldn't be arsed to delete all the empty categories, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same user (apparently) has been creating new entries, which may or may not be attested; see the latest comments on Wiktionary:Requests for verification#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appears resolved. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


RFV discussion: October 2016–April 2017[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

All of them. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, why? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Västerbotten is in Sweden and the spelling here consists largely of letters not found on the Swedish keyboard, which caught my interest. But Google only throws out us if you look them up and my Westrobothnian friend recognises the words but not the spelling. I pinged the Author and got no reply. So pretty much all bells are rung. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Korn: Well, maybe we're just using a weird normalised spelling. If your friend recognises the words, then it's in bad faith to think that they're wrong, and they will likely get deleted just because nobody can be arsed to find anything on Westrobothnian. It would be much better to send this kind of thing to WT:RFC where you could try to get people to help fix the entries rather than leave them to be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot overstate how bewildered I am by your post. 1. If a single user invents a weird normalised spelling without any discussion or documentation, that doesn't belong here. 2. I could render Westrobothnian in Cree syllabics or Bopomofo and my friend would recognise the word when I explain her what it's supposed to mean. That doesn't mean squat. 3. What you say applies to literally every RFV. If you're against Wiktionary's process of verification, that's a discussion belonging in the Beer Parlour. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WT:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Category:Westrobothnian lemmas. I created it because this doesn't seem to be really an issue about attestation of individual spellings, but about orthography of the language as a whole. Yes, we want to avoid having entries for nonexistent spellings, but this method will likely result in the deletion of entries that would pass rfv if people had the time and the references to look them up (unless you're saying that there's no overlap whatsoever with attested orthographies). It also deletes valid content that would be fine if it were in an entry with the correct spelling. The main challenge will be coming up with the correct spellings to move the entries to. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Knyȝt You probably want to be aware of this. The invention of spellings is not normally within the scope of this project aside from normalisations based on existing traditions or reconstructions based on trends in science. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last part sounds similar to what I'm doing, depending on what it actually means. Have you considered Category:Gutnish_lemmas, Category:Scanian_lemmas, Category:Norn_lemmas or Category:Jamtish_lemmas, or are you only concerned with Westrobothnian? Do you have any particular hatred for Westrobothnian? What gives all the other languages free pass? How many dead languages do you think have a widely used written standard? — Knyȝt (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gutnish spelling is from [1] and Scanian from [2]. Also, we should generalize the issue into how to deal with languages with no written tradition. For instance, compare Category:ǃKung lemmas with entries like žuː, ˤk'i or compare Category:ǃXóõ_lemmas with exotic entries like ǀùa ǁʻúm ǀnān and tVʻVV-sà kV. --80.63.3.167 20:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no relation with Westrobothnian whatsoever, nor with any other East Nordic variety. I simply came across a group of outlandish spellings randomly and decided to bring them to the community's attention when I couldn't source them. That said, 'others do it to' is never an argument for anything. As for unwritten languages: I believe we normally have a discussion amongst the community, document the spelling we invent and put them in an appendix. There was something like this going for some Native American language some time ago, if my memory doesn't trick me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out incoherent practices, watching this fuss made regarding Westrobothnian. E.g. ǃKung entries like ǯau amd ǃgoːa have existed since 2007, which led me to think that entries for unwritten languages were accepted and not to be placed into an appendix. If it is the norm or ? idk, then we should appendicise languages like Category:ǃXóõ lemmas, Category:ǃKung lemmas, Category:Juǀ'hoan lemmas, Category:Gciriku lemmas, Category:ǀXam lemmas, Category:Nǀuu lemmas etc. Btw, I'm not User:Knyȝt, but former IP 87.63.114.210. --80.63.3.167 08:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no incoherent practice, users deal with things when they come across them. If you think the languages you listed are not verifiable, you can call for the removal or change of their entries just the same. I've never seen any entry of theirs nor would I be able to tell whether something was noteworthy or unusual about their entries. I think we have some Sami variety which uses IPA-characters as well and should be checked, but I don't recall what it was. If you want to work out a general consensus or even policy for unwritten languages, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour is the place to go to. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed should the matter be brought to WT:BP, as it concerns a number of languages. How we deal with lemmas in unwritten languages like Westrobothnian, Jamtish, !Kung etc. should be organized therefrom. --80.63.3.167 23:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Sami variety in question is Ter Sami, and it's indeed a mess. --Tropylium (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must mention that while nobody is taking care of your noble endeavours to move these to other spellings or bring this up in Beer Parlour, these entries confirmed to not be verifiable by the author are just sitting on our page with a status which qualifies for a deletion. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All entries have been deleted. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Category filled again. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the same author, it seems. If these new words are also unattested/invented spellings, still being entered after the user was warned against inventing unattested spellings, then a short block might be in order. But are these unattested in this language? A few strings like börfast and einstöding seem to be attested, but I don't have time at the moment to check in which language. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entries are taken from the 19th century Ordbok över Umemålet, which uses a sort of Westrobothnian Teuthonista. So basically they're all phonetic transcriptions. @Angr, Knyȝt Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Korn You have the attestations you wanted. What's the problem? @-sche If you cannot take the time to examine the sources presented, maybe you should just not bother other people with ignorant comments. @Korn Some spellings are taken from that book, others are taken from other books, as you can see for yourself if you actually examine more than a couple entries. As it happens, börfast and einstöding are not taken from that book.
Since you're asking for it, I will also add that the writing system Stenberg uses is a mix of etymological spelling and "phonetic" spelling, basically like any other European writing system. In almost every single source I use, there is a differentiation between the spelling and the exact pronunciation, and so the spelling cannot be said to be phonetic transcription like IPA. If you are looking for something like Teuthonista I would instead recommend Landsmålsalfabetet. Do you need any more help with anything? — Knyȝt (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the editors' job to check en detail every single of somebody else's entries. The very purpose of this page (Request for verification) is for the author (and/or those equally able) to provide sources when other editors ask for them, as that is the most efficient process. It eludes me why you and that other user expect that all the voluntary contributors on Wiktionary check every single entry on it as if we were paid curators of this site. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you straight up lie when you know you have very little information? You seem to prefer to make stuff up rather than ask someone who knows or admit you don't know enough. Now, I'll ask again since I would prefer an answer, is anything else needed? Do you need me to do anything other than provide sources like I already have? — Knyȝt (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? This very thread is me asking someone who knows, so I don't know what you're ranting raving about. And no, I do not need anything else, it is now up to the community to discuss whether these transcriptions meet CFI. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so manipulative. Asking a question is not "ranting". It's funny how you are basically ranting while saying that as well; you could have just answered the question normally since you did that in your second sentence anyway. Take your medication. — Knyȝt (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Unresolved RFM[edit]

Note that there is still an unresolved RFM discussion about moving the terms in this category, which may still be relevant since this category has been repopulated (as explained in the above RFV). - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 03:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other relevant discussions[edit]

See also other relevant discussions at Category talk:Westrobothnian language. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFM discussion: November 2016–April 2023[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

See also: Information desk/2016/October and Category talk:Westrobothnian lemmas

User:Korn posted this to rfv as a way of requesting verification of all the Westrobothnian entries. The justification was that the orthography doesn't seem to be one that has been actually used for the language. Given that the terms seem, for the most part, to be real and added in good faith, I would like to see if we can figure out a way to move them to the appropriate spellings rather than deleting them as unattested. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck described the situation correctly as I see it. It's about spelling, not terms. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update After this request was opened, all the pages in the category were deleted (for the reason Chuck Entz mentioned above), but the category was repopulated by the same user who populated it initially (@Knyȝt), as documented in the RFV. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a native speaker of a certain dialect of Sydvästerbottniska (A specific dialect/language cluster within "westrobothnian" which i'd rather call just "bothnian" to reduce the mixup of västerbottniska (the language(s) of västerbotten, not västerbotten+norrbotten) and bondska/bothnian as a whole). I am also working on a cross-dialectal comparative and historical dictionary. All the words in this wiktionary are definitely real and attested, but I absolutely hate it because some spellings are attested, but every word from a different dictionary (which essentially never have the same orthography) or it is a completely made up spelling that makes no fucking sense, Like Ʃevar In my opinion, there's two options, In no particular order
1) Make up an etymological spelling of which all dialects can be derived from
2) Split this into multiple different languages and stay faithful to the dictionary spellings for each dictionary.
(@Knyȝt) has seemingly been trying to do a mix of both? but I don't think he has succeeded in either endeavor. As much as I clown on Westrobothnian on wiktionary, it is definitely a force of good for the language(s) and I am glad someone is trying to do the work. I Just wish the execution was kept to a higher standard, or atleast a consistent standard.
I am personally entirely busy with my own dictionary work and I don't have the time, energy or willpower to fix someone elses mess however.
Closed, see Category talk:Westrobothnian language#Language code deletion. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Westrobothnian_lemmas&oldid=73011401"