User talk:Wyang

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

A view from my limited perspective[edit]

I have enjoyed learning the various neologisms that you have added to the site like 喜當爹, 照騙 etc. I appreciate your guidance and patience at various stages- I now religiously check to make sure that the 'Compounds' section is the same level as the 'Definitions' section on Chinese character pages, and that 'Derived terms' is one level below the definitions for a Chinese word. From my limited perspective, you were definitely doing the work that will eventually make this dictionary the best Chinese-English dictionary in the world. Have a Happy New Year. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


まぁ、厳密にいうと「去年ぶり」かな。^_^ おかえり!それに、今年もよろしくお願いします! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

久しぶりですね。Wyang (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Nice to see you back on here :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reducing Lua memory usage[edit]

Nice to see you back :)

Do you happen to have any idea about how to reduce Lua memory usage when fetching a large number of pages with getContent()? い#Etymology 3 is reaching 21.38 MB/50 MB. I'm not sure how そう#漢語 would be. --Dine2016 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Wyang, welcome back! Recently I've been adding Korean and Vietnamese compounds/readings to pages such as . Unfortunately, it's broken from 水#Etymology 3 (Japanese section) onwards. {{Han etym}} is already temporarily hidden while {{character info/水}} is being used as a no-Lua option, but it's still out of memory. After removing 50 "compounds of compounds", the red-line warning only cleared up by one word. Any ideas about this? KevinUp (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at APP[edit]

You know the proper channels for litigating a dispute over content. Edit wars are not one of them. It is disingenuous to claim that another party withdrawing from discussion because your actions have made it too stressful constitutes a lack of argument. We have discussed this before, and disagreed, but I still hold that the dictionary must be built by a community, and that means that any one editor will not always get their way.

I respect your expertise and your work, and I am loathe to block you or escalate the conflict, but I will do it if I think it is necessary. You bring a lot to Wiktionary, and I hope we can work together rather than waste time fighting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the issue itself? Wyang (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
No. I don't have a strong opinion, and I don't think I necessarily deserve to have one as a non-speaker. In this matter, I only care about protecting the community-based process we use to build the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
What seems obvious to native speakers may seem completely outrageous to non-native and non-speakers. If something is apparently in the wrong language, or if the content is apparently wrong, is it always nominated for deletion or do people mostly just correct or delete it on the spot? Wyang (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not a matter of deleting vandalism on the spot. You continued edit-warring after objections were raised by speakers, and it had been sent to RFV (which, last I checked, had not been closed). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Why do non-native speakers think they can teach what native speakers regard as their language? Wyang (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
That's beside the point, so I don't want to debate it. The point is that edit-warring was not the proper or productive response. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly where the frustration lies. In all seriousness, why are non-native and non-speakers allowed to have an equal say in these discussions, and thus sometimes making decisions on behalf of the natives, who clearly disagree? Wyang (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think they do have an equal say. You in particular are given a great deal of deference owing to your expertise, and most of our Chinese editors who weigh in are native or heritage speakers. But they do have an equal say in formal votes, to be sure. I think it's fine to point out perceived flaws in our system, and to try to change them, but that's not what you've done. You tried to tire out anyone who might disagree with reverts and conflict. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
See this is the problem ― whoever does the work gets harassed and rebuked by the peacekeepers that hardly do work. A constant cycle of harassments. Wyang (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
In my experience I have found that non-native speakers can be more sensitive to certain linguistic matters than native speakers. I have certainly become more sensitive to suggestions made by others in general, especially when they go against my idiolect. In any event it is necessary for the health of Wiktionary to allow multiple points of view, even when "experts" disagree. This is something of a populist not an elitist institution. DCDuring (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you clarify if you are claiming that I am harassing you by discussing this issue? While we've been having this discussion, you've continued edit-warring, and if you weren't both an admin and somebody I respect, there is no question that I would have blocked you by now. I have been trying to explain that even when something frustrates you, you may not always get your way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't fret, I will do that myself. Permanently. Wyang (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Not a good way to deal with this, but it's your right not to participate. I will undo the block, which is a rather silly stunt. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The core issue here is an extremely divisive topic. There is no solution, either on or off Wiktionary. Edit wars are natural and normal, and they happen for a reason. A way will be found to incorporate the appropriate information onto the APP page eventually. We absolutely need to learn from and incorporate Wyang's perspective into an appropriate reworking of the APP page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been losing sleep over this, so I may not be completely coherent. I think the problem here is that you come from a culture that places great weight on everyone knowing their place, and in showing respect and deference in order to affirm the proper order of things. A wiki, on the other hand, is the product of American egalitarian individualism, which encourages everyone to participate on the assumption that the best will rise to the top, and the rest won't be held back from contributing whatever they have of value. Both have their merits, but you can't expect one to behave like the other.
You may remember our first encounter, where I explained to you that you couldn't unilaterally change the way we do Chinese entries. You then proceeded to come up with some great ideas, get everyone to support them, and totally transformed the way Wiktionary does Chinese and several other Asian languages. You didn't do it alone- you had the help of a whole community of editors who helped you make it work. That's what wikis are good at.
Your conduct in this entire episode has been problematic- and I say this as one of your biggest fans. First of all, your tactics have provided plenty of ammunition to your opponents, without accomplishing much of anything. You're disrupting things to the point where someone is going to have to step in, and that won't be good for you or for Wiktionary. More importantly: you've expended too much effort trying to bypass and shut off the debate, and not enough trying to understand why others disagree with you.
It's not enough that you're a native speaker and your opponents aren't- you can't speak for all speakers everywhere. If there are a significant number of speakers for whom the term is Chinese, it's Chinese- maybe nonstandard, but Chinese nonetheless. Another thing to consider is that code-switching can only be done by those who speak both languages at least a little and can switch between them. If anyone using this term doesn't speak English, it's not code-switching. It's hard to say for sure exactly what it is, but it can't be code-switching. This is a massive gray area that needs to be worked out, and it will require open minds from all concerned to come up with something that makes sense. That's hard to accomplish when everything's playing out like a bad professional wrestling match. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Metaknowledge You stated "It should be obvious that quotes in Chinese don't belong in an English entry." I would like to humbly submit that nothing in this world is obvious, and that it is BY NO MEANS obvious that what is considered by Chinese people to be an English word should not be displayed in this way. I agree that many Chinese people deeply believe that APP is English. Just because the surrounding words are Chinese does not mean that this is not an English example- see the usage notes on that page. Let me ask this, just how would we give examples of code-mixing on wiktionary? Please do not continue to attack whatever tactics Wyang may or may not have used and focus directly on substance wherever possible. This is a deeply CONTENTIOUS issue and it should be 100% expected that there might be some edit war type behavior sometimes. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
re:" [] just how would we give examples of code-mixing on wiktionary?". That's the critical question, though there's a difference between code-switching/code-mixing and other types of multilingualism. Code switching is when someone who speaks two languages switches from one to the other in the same conversation or text, usually because one or the other seems better suited for saying certain types of things. For instance, someone may switch from Mandarin to their own dialect when talking about something personal or when trying to convey that they're sincere or feel deeply about something. Code-switching could potentially include anything, so it's not something a dictionary should even try to cover. Not everything is code-switching, though. I'm going to have to sit down and try to sort all of this out so we can start a discussion. We need to figure out how we're going to deal with this within the Wiktionary format: on the one hand, I don't want to shoehorn all sorts of things into languages where they don't belong, but on the other, we're a descriptive dictionary and this is real usage- we should cover it somehow. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to mention here that Singaporean Chinese and Malaysian Chinese would sometimes code-switch certain English words into Mandarin conversations, e.g.
steam這個多久 / steam这个多久  ―  steam zhège yào duōjiǔ?  ―  How long does it take to steam this?
明天golf / 明天golf  ―  Míngtiān yào qù dǎ golf ma?  ―  Want to play golf tomorrow?
why you so壞蛋快點功課 / why you so坏蛋快点功课  ―  Why you so huàidàn? Kuàidiǎn zuò gōngkè!  ―  Why are you so naughty? Quickly do your homework.
This is a product of multilingualism in the region. The equivalent Chinese words for "steam", "golf" and "why you so", which are (zhēng), 高爾夫球高尔夫球 (gāo'ěrfūqiú) and 為什麼這樣为什么这样 (wèishéme nǐ zhèyàng) are perfectly understood by Mandarin speakers as well. If the conversation is subtitled, those terms would be used instead.
On the other hand, Min Nan speakers in Singapore and Malaysia also incorporate a wide variety of Malay words into spoken Hokkien, e.g.
Tô-lô͘ngsā-lā,sā-mān [Min Nan]  ―  Tô-lô͘ng óa, i sā-lā-, mài sā-mān óa [Pe̍h-ōe-jī]  ―  Please help me, that person did an offence, don't give me a summons/fine/monetary penalty.
Although the equivalent Min Nan words for "help", "did an offence", "summons/fine" which are 拜托 (pài-thok), 犯法 (hōan-hoat), 罰款罚款 (ho̍at-khóan) does exist, these are considered mainstream Taiwanese Hokkien and are never used locally. Also, some Singaporean speakers might not be able to identify the Malay words tolong, salah, saman, due to lack of proficiency in the Malay language. Nevertheless. the terms tô-lô͘ng, sā-lā, sā-mān have been incorporated into local Hokkien for such a long time that no other equivalent words exist.
Some considerations for code switching: (1) Are the native speakers monolingual or multilingual, does contact still exist with the borrowed language? (2) Does an equivalent word exist in the native vocabulary? Are native speakers familiar with it? KevinUp (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, it'd be silly to lose User:Wyang (such a great editor with tremendous contributions over the years) due to such a matter. My opinion is: Put a mainland China label on APP#Chinese, unless there is evidence of the word not pronounced as ēi-pī-pī in Mainland China. Unfortunately, there is some evidence of code-switching in Taiwan/Hong Kong, due to the way it is pronounced. If native speakers in Taiwan/Hong Kong are not able to associate English /æp/ with APP#Chinese, then the term is not code-switched in Taiwan/Hong Kong. Same goes for China. KevinUp (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Hey! Hope you are well. I just wanted to say that the ōng pronunciation you added to the 唵嘛呢叭咪吽 page for character (in Mandarin) is not listed on the page. I would add ōng to the page myself, but I don't have any sources that say it is read that way (beside common sense). Variant readings are critical, and I don't want to mess it up. If you don't want to add it, forget it. Thanks for your work. Sorry about any problems I may have caused with the APP debate. ttyl --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)