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

A soft redirect to be discussed:[edit]

This (suggested by User:-sche):


European {{l|en|Planck}} + Mandarin {{l|cmn|常数|sc=Hans}}

{{head|cmn|noun|tr=Planck chángshù}}

# {{nonstandard spelling of|普朗克常数|tr=Pǔlǎngkè chángshù|lang=cmn}}

Would produce:



European Planck + Mandarin 常数


Planck常数 (Planck chángshù)

  1. Nonstandard spelling of 普朗克常数 (Pǔlǎngkè chángshù).

--Anatoli 02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is not Mandarin. 02:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
@ : Soft redirects were proposed by Dan or Lmaltier (or possibly someone else first), and "warmed to" by Eiríkr and me, as a compromise solution that seems to appeal to an even broader range of our editors than simply banning the entries. This sequence of characters ("Planck常数") is attested (that is, it can be found in at least three durably archived places). That makes some (Dan, Lmaltier) very reluctant to delete it. You ( and Anatoli, Jamesjiao and Tooironic have all argued that the term is not Mandarin. That's a strong consensus among users who actually know Mandarin, which I am inclined to defer to. However, as Dan wrote in the Beer Parlour, "The dictionary's containing a term does not yet mean that the dictionary somehow endorses the term or recommends its use. The dictionary merely registers observations about the actual use of language." Soft redirects would let us have an entry for the attested sequence of characters (addressing Dan and Lmaltier's concerns), while still making clear through context tags and usage notes that the term is not considered standard — you could even say, not considered Mandarin (addressing the concerns you and the others have).
The reasons for choosing Mandarin as the language header are: part of the term is Mandarin, the whole is used in a Mandarin context, and Mandarin is the language it isn't standard in. (That last one might not seem like a reason to give it a Mandarin header, but think: we're giving it a usage note saying it is nonstandard and proscribed in Mandarin because it represents a mix of scripts and languages; such a usage note, describing the term's use and in/appropriateness in Mandarin, is only appropriate in an entry with a Mandarin header.) - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Of course, the entry should be included only if it is actually attestable per WT:Attestation. --Dan Polansky 07:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As for what the entry would look like, what about:

Mandarin (2)[edit]


Planck常数 (Planck chángshù)

  1. Nonstandard, mixed-script rendition of 普朗克常数 (Pǔlǎngkè chángshù).

Usage notes[edit]

This form, which mixes the Latin-script Planck with the Mandarin word 常数 (chángshù, constant), is proscribed (regarded as incorrect, and not recognised by other Chinese dictionaries). It is unlikely to be understood by monolingual speakers of Chinese. The form 普朗克常数 should be used instead.

Notice that we do not even need to have an etymology, although I personally would not mind one. Also notice that I used {{head|cmn|tr=Planck chángshù}} without even setting a part of speech, so that it does not even appear in Category:Mandarin nouns. Postscript: but it should be in Category:Mandarin terms written in multiple scripts, because that's accurate, and so that it won't be uncategorised. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no need. Mandarin speakers don't perceive this to be a Mandarin word (check with any native speaker if in doubt), so why tell them it is their language? The mixing of English words extends far beyond proper nouns. The case of proper nouns is more obvious because proper nouns are more prone to being written unchanged (resulting from the transcriptive, not transliterative, nature of the script correspondence). Examples: appointment, body, soul, qualifications, personal statement, reference letter, mother tongue, friend. We don't regard these as "proscribed but incorrect and unrecognised forms of Chinese" do we? 05:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Aha, but some (most?) of the users who want to keep Planck常数 are willing to accept that "国外大学了解你专业上的qualifications,几乎完全是靠审查各种申请文件来实现的。" is a Chinese sentence with an English word in it. The distinction Prosfilaes makes is that we have an entry for 国外, an entry for qualification#English, and an entry for 几乎; someone can look up the individual words in that sentence and find all of them. However, Prosfilaes and Dan have argued that someone could not look up Planck and 常数 separately and figure out the meaning of the expression. Do you follow that argument? It seems the only terms that Prosfilaes wants entries for are terms like "Planck常数", where the term means (it is argued) something different from just part1 "Planck" + part2 "常数", and part1 is written in one script and part2 in another. A sentence like *"Planck constant記為h,。。。" wouldn't support an entry for *Planck constant#Mandarin, because we would already cover it at Planck constant#English; we wouldn't have *qualifications#Mandarin, either. (I can think of one or two editors other than Engirst who would want an entry for *qualifications#Mandarin, but they've been dramatically outvoted in these discussions — even, IIRC, by one of the editors who wants to keep Planck常数 — so, realistically, we won't have *qualifications#Mandarin.) So, we wouldn't have entries for all the English words found in Chinese books, we would only have the small subset of mixed-script, non-SOP terms (which are part Mandarin — in this case, the 常数 part). Would allowing that smaller number of soft redirects be a tolerable compromise? I ask all the Chinese editors who've called for a ban. - -sche (discuss) 09:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The number of soft redirects will not be small. Here are the lists of eponymous diseases, laws, phenomenae, equations, reactions. A page like this isn't really helpful to anyone: To those who speak Mandarin, they will not recognise this as a Mandarin word; to those with or without the basic knowledge of Mandarin, the word boundary is apparent, and there is no looking-up inconvenience involved. Allowing such an entry to exist but not analogous non-proper nouns is contradictory to the principle you quoted above, that Wiktionary should only record the actual usage of a language. (The criteria of inclusion should be kept consistent. I think someone said at the RFD page of this entry, that the reason Москва was deleted but "Planck常数" should be kept was the presence of other language sections at Москва, which made the meaning of "Москва" obvious. That isn't a very convincing reason.)
Another point is that while "Planck's constant" may not be regarded as a SOP, "普朗克常数" probably should be. The definition of a word in Mandarin is much more strict than in English. None of the dictionaries I consulted (incl. 漢語大詞典, 現代漢語詞典, 中文大辭典) included "普朗克常数". 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Those lists of eponymous diseases, laws etc are long, but remember: each term has to have three properly-formatted citations or it will fail RFV and be deleted. Planck's constant is important in physics, and "Planck常数" is still very rare (occurs in 28 books, whereas "普朗克常数" occurs in 1390). I doubt many of the more obscure diseases and laws are attested; I certainly doubt anyone of us will try to cite them, so any Engirst doesn't cite will be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This proposal by -she also looks good to me, including the usage note. The wording of the usage note can be simplified, but looks okay in substance. --Dan Polansky 08:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I warmed to this idea as well. Well done, -sche, you're a master of compromise! I don't want to encourage these type of entries, though. Perhaps we should use a rule - "standard before non-standard", similar to pinyin entries. We should also get opinion of other Mandarin speaking editors. The opinion of as a native speaker is very important but we should try to find a consensus. --Anatoli 10:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, I'm asking James and Tooironic what they think. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Tooironic is OK with this (on his user talk), as are Eirikr and Prosfilaes (in the BP). We'll see what James has to say, but it looks like almost everyone is on board. I understand's concern that even having a ==Mandarin== header might mislead a reader into thinking she/he should use the term in Mandarin, but I think tagging it beneath that header as fifty kinds of wrong (figure of speech) will dissuade and disabuse that reader. - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late arrival. The Rugby World Cup is in full swing here. Anyway, I think this is a good compromise as long as it is attestable. Whole English terms, however, should still be excluded. Even I use English terms sometimes when I write in Chinese, only because I am too lazy or I simply don't know the term in Chinese; typical code-switching in this case for a Chinese speaker living in an English-speaking environment. JamesjiaoTC 09:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If we get User_talk: to agree, we'll save us a lot of time. I suggest to allow soft-redirects only if we have a standard form. Do we really expect a flood of entries like that from users other than 123abc/Engirst and his sockpuppets? I don't think our current opponents of deletion of "Planck常数" will work on creating such entries. --Anatoli 10:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. JamesjiaoTC 23:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Even if doesn't agree to this idea of soft redirects, everyone else does, which means we have a very strong basis for doing it. Combined with Dan's practical proposal to allow immediate deletion of terms that aren't cited (without a month at RFV), I think we have a very good solution. If we want to codify it by Vote, I suppose we should set up one vote for the procedural change (speedy deletion rather than RFV), and one vote for the policy (to make mixed script terms into soft redirects). (We already make entries like "archaelogical" into soft redirects by simple consensus, which we have here, so IMO we don't need a vote to start changing entries — I already changed this one — but yeah, let's codify it by vote.) I'll say this in the Beer Parlour. - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, 1) citations and 2) existence of at least one proper Mandarin entry (not in two languages) should be the rule, even if it's for a soft redirect entry, besides the format matching this entry. If this is the case, I will agree. Do you all agree that if 123abc's mixed language entries without the first two conditions are created, they will be deleted on sight? If he fails to use the proper format, it will be time-consuming to convert. --Anatoli 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. JamesjiaoTC 00:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wording of the usage note[edit]

The usage note should IMHO better be worded not thus:

  • This form, which mixes the Latin-script Planck with the Mandarin 常数 (chángshù, “constant”), is proscribed (regarded as incorrect, and not recognised by other Chinese dictionaries). It is unlikely to be understood by monolingual speakers of Chinese. The form 普朗克常数 should be used instead.

but rather thus:

  • This form mixes the Latin-script Planck with the Mandarin 常数 (chángshù, “constant”). Many Chinese speakers consider this form incorrect, and use the form 普朗克常数 instead. Furthermore, the form is unlikely to be understood by monolingual speakers of Chinese.

A descriptivist dictionary should not tell what should and should not be done, hence my removal of 'The form 普朗克常数 should be used instead' from the proposal. --Dan Polansky 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Changing now. --Anatoli 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I like the new wording. :) - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Mixed script Mandarin entries has started.[edit]

The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Mixed script Mandarin entries has started. --Anatoli 11:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.


Concurrent discussion: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Planck.E5.B8.B8.E6.95.B0_.28Planck_Ch.C3.A1ngsh.C3.B9.29

Tagged for deletion by Anatoli on 4 October 2011‎, for reasons that he will probably explain. --Dan Polansky 06:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he really needs to explain it again; do you? BigDom (tc) 11:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
When a senior editor tags an entry for RFD in the main namespace, he should immediately also create a nomination in WT:RFD, and give a short reason for nomination. The term "Planck常数" is not a semantic sum of parts. It is not a proper name either, unlike the recently nominated "Thames河". The only reason that comes to mind is "I don't like Mandarin terms that are in part written in part in Latin script; I consider them wrong", which is not a WT:CFI consideration, but rather a stance of prescriptivist lexicography. Wiktionary is a descriptivist dictionary following the descriptivist traditions of Anglo-American lexicography, so much unlike some other lexicographic traditions. --Dan Polansky 11:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm bitterly disappointed by the dichotomous treatment of Mandarin and English entries (Москва). 12:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Dan, the main concern (as I've understood it) is that Planck常数 is not a term that monolingual Mandarin readers would know, and that Planck常数 is a term that only Mandarin readers at least partly versed in English would know. The stance by the main sinophone editors is that Planck常数 is a mixed-language term, and as such, it has no place under any single-language heading -- unless the WT community decides to create some new heading, such as ==Chinglish==.
That aside, I cannot fully agree with your statement that Planck常数 is not a proper noun -- the term as a whole (as a gloss for Planck's constant) may refer to a number, but Planck is certainly a proper noun, and a decidedly non-Mandarin one at that, thus making the mechanics of this term quite similar to those for Thames河. -- Eiríkr Útlendi * Tala við mig 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"Planck"'s being a proper noun is in no contradiction to "Planck constant"'s being a common noun, as well as "Planck常数"; see also Category:English eponyms, and Achilles heel, Alzheimer's disease and Faraday cage in particular. Both "Planck constant" and "Planck常数" are not semantic sums of parts, regardless of assertions to the contrary. --Dan Polansky 17:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Dan -- Forgive me for mixing issues. SOP or not is beside the point of whether or not to classify "Planck常数" as "Mandarin"; I was simply trying to make the point that the "Planck" in "Planck常数" is a proper noun, just as the "Thames" in "Thames河" is a proper noun, with the proper-noun-ness only really relevant with regard to the vote being organized -- but it seems I only muddied the waters.
To restate: The argument is that "Planck" is not recognized as a Mandarin word. Planck常数 thus represents some kind of written pidgin.
Question (to the community at large): At what point do we recognize (and start cataloging) a pidgin? Inasmuch as WT is stated to be a descriptivist project, what is the threshold for mixed-language use beyond which we are happy to include mixed-language terms? Simply finding three citations seems an extraordinarily low bar. Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope seems quite relevant in this particular thread, and could be interpreted as arguing against inclusion of Planck常数 unless or until it has been adopted into common use. -- Eiríkr Útlendi * Tala við mig 18:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Simply finding three citations is an extraordinarily low bar; what does being a pidgin have to do with that? I don't see how Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope helps you; all it says is that we only include attestable words, not things that aren't attestable.--Prosfilaes 05:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're reading the same Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope section. The parts that look pertinent to this discussion:
  • Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry).
    Just as we might talk about "spaghetti and ricordati" in English, yet consider "ricordati" to still be an Italian word, "Planck常数" is being talked about in Chinese, yet "Planck" is still considered to be an English word.
  • Any word may be rendered in pig Latin, but only a few (e.g., amscray) have found their way into common use.
    Similarly, any Chinese term with European analogs may be rendered in a mixed-language format, like "Planck常数" instead of "普朗克常数", but only a few (e.g., OK) are found in common use.
  • Any word may be rendered in leet style, but only a few (e.g., pr0n) see general use.
    Leet is an alternate rendering, similar to rendering words in the Latin alphabet in Chinese.
  • It may seem that trendy internet prefixes like e- and i- are used everywhere, but they aren’t. If I decide to talk about e-thumb-twiddling but no one else does, then there’s no need for an entry.
    I read this as describing again how commonly a term is used. If the vast majority of Mandarin writers eschew "Planck常数" and hew instead to "普朗克常数", that sounds a bit like "If I decide to talk about Planck常数 but no one else does, then there’s no need for an entry."
Reading Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope, I certainly don't see how it describes just attestation -- I get from it instead that attestation alone is not enough. -- Eiríkr Útlendi * Tala við mig 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope is meant to supplant WT:CFI#Attestation to require common use of words. Attestation alone is enough; "common use" is not required. In case of doubt, we may open this subject of whether "common use" is required in Beer parlour. The practice that I have seen in WT:RFV and WT:RFD is that common use is never required. In case of further confusion, I think it would be worth trying to get Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope removed again; it was added to CFI without a vote, while a vote for its removal ended with 5:4:0 as no consensus for removal. --Dan Polansky 07:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
You're upset about the fact that we treat Москва different from this word despite the fact that they're different? I would have fought tooth and claw for Москва if English was the only heading for Москва. But deleting the English heading for Москва is basically bureaucratic; we still have an entry Москва that makes it amply clear that it means Moscow. There's possible discussion about what language heading Planck常数 belongs under, but it's attestable under some language heading.--Prosfilaes 05:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have explained amply in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Planck常数 (Planck Chángshù), the way I could. Other people have added and supported. Repeating it again would be a waste of everyone's time. Everybody seems to be set in their positions. 普朗克常数 (Pǔlǎngkè chángshù) is the Mandarin equivalent, correct and coomon translation of Planck's constant, "Planck常数" is not. Most of the discussion happened in BP, no point in duplicating it. @Dan Polansky's about myself - "I don't like Mandarin terms that are in part written in part in Latin script; I consider them wrong". Well, Mandarin, as you know, is written in Chinese characters (like Russian in Cyrillic), the exceptions are abbreviations like OK#Mandarin, some letters inserted before, between or after Chinese characters, everything else is not Chinese but Chinese can occasionally write in foreign languages inside a Chinese text, especially common with foreign personal and place names. I quoted examples in BP. The name "Planck" in the citations is not written in Chinese, so "Planck常数" can't be considered a semantic unit. I have recently modified the vote to include "This vote only affects proper nouns and common nouns using non-Chinese proper nouns as part of a common noun, e.g. Planck常数.". If you are against this rule, you can vote against it. --Anatoli 05:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
You have provided an ample set of fallacious arguments in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Planck常数 (Planck Chángshù), as far as I can tell, repeatedly claiming that the term is a sum of parts. There are enough counterexamples to the assertion that Mandarin Chinese is written exclusively in Chinese characters. Instead of looking at whether a term is attested, you rely on false claims ("Planck常数 is a sum of parts", "Chinese is written exclusively in Chinese characters") and rhetorical language ("Chinglish", "have an agenda", "madness", "spread illiteracy"). --Dan Polansky 07:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: '"Planck常数" can't be considered a semantic unit': What has "semantic unit" to do with anything. "Planck常数" is a term such that "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components" (WT:SOP). --Dan Polansky 07:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
As someone else said earlier, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I wonder if the misunderstanding might be due to Dan insisting that "Planck constant" is not the definition of "Planck常数", and we are replying that "Planck constant" is the translation of "Planck常数". On English Wiki, we are only defining English terms...foreign-language terms get a translation instead. If we limit ourselves to the notion of translation only, not definition, I do not see how "Planck常数" could not be considered SoP, since the parts translate to "Planck" and "constant", and the correct translation is Planck's constant. For the definition of the foreign term "Planck常数", you have to refer to the English Planck's constant. —Stephen (Talk) 09:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the important distinction, but I don't know if I agree (with Stephen) regarding the meaning of "SOP". We have Weißes Haus#German, even though weißes + Haus = White House (or white House); if someone were to propose to delete Weißes Haus as SOP, I'd tend to oppose that. I tend to think Dan is right that "Planck常数" is not SOP in the way we traditionally use that word, to describe the light is red, etc.
The problem is that, although the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, those parts are still (argued to be) from two languages. - -sche (discuss) 09:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly believe that what appears in definition lines is always a definition (a definition is an explanation of what a term means), even when this definition is a translation, and that there is no reason not to use the same format in English words and non-English words (the current rule about the use of capitals is inconsistent). But I don't see why it should be a reason to exclude this writing. Lmaltier 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

kept as cited, unlike the Thames one. -- Liliana 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Mixed script Mandarin entries has started. --Anatoli 11:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)