Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Line 50: Line 50:
   
 

::::: Maximum 6. "[[zu#Japanese|zu]]" has 4 links. Combinations like ああ, あー, アア, あー will all give "ā". Romaji with ō may be linked to hiragana おお, おう, おー, katakana オオ, オウ, オー. Small　つ (tsu) - っ may be silent at the end of a word after vowels, thus giving more variants. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

  

::::: Maximum 6. "[[zu#Japanese|zu]]" has 4 links. Combinations like ああ, あー, アア, あー will all give "ā". Romaji with ō may be linked to hiragana おお, おう, おー, katakana オオ, オウ, オー. Small　つ (tsu) - っ may be silent at the end of a word after vowels, thus giving more variants. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +

:::::: Yes, copy=wording of the text used in entries, like "Romanization of" vs. "See:" vs. "See". Now we know about Gothic, and the question of consistency needs to be addressed.
  +
  +

:::::: Where was I? Why? Look, Anatoli, I wasn't involved in a big conversation about romaji. Now it has become evident that this is relevant to the design of entries in three or more languages, and that it is a controversial edge case not covered perfectly clearly by our guidelines. Don't imply that I don't have a right to give my input. We all make an investment here, and I recognize your amazing contribution, but that doesn't mean any of us owns some part of this project.&nbsp;<span class="user-mzajac">''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2013-04-04&nbsp;00:50&nbsp;z</small>''</span>
   
 

==== Abstain ====

  

==== Abstain ====

Latest revision as of 00:50, 4 April 2013

Contents

[edit] Japanese romaji romanization - format and content

  • Voting on: Constraining the content of romaji entries. In particular:
    1. A headings that, for an English entry, usually contains a part of speech should, for romaji entries, be "Romanization" rather than a part of speech. These are level 3 headings.
    2. In each romaji entry, there should only be cross-reference links output by a template. Examples would look like "# See: ちゅうけい" or "# Romanization of ちゅうけい".
    3. In each romaji entry, there should be no glosses following the links. Thus, chūkei, would look like "# See: ちゅうけい" or "# Romanization of ちゅうけい", rather than "# See: ちゅうけい: delay; abbreviation of relay broadcast; ceremonial folding fan; younger of two elder brothers".
The ultimate goal is that each Japanese romaji entry will be no more than a cross-reference to the corresponding hiragana, katakana, or mixed-script forms. This is intended to allow for easier automatic generation of romaji entries, and to eliminate the maintenance overhead required in the past whenever a gloss or other information was added to a romaji entry but not to the corresponding kana entry, or vice versa.
  • A typical example, this proposal only affects romaji entries, which had the same information as in hiragana entries:
  1. romaji: dentaku (links to でんたく), no definition) - a disambiguation entry (here, only one kana equivalent exists)
  2. hiragana: でんたく (links to 電卓 (or any other kanji with the same hiragana reading) with PoS and short definitions); no link if the term is only written in hiragana.
  3. kanji: 電卓 - a complete entry
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Support constraining romaji entries

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Haplology (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ultimateria (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support just to add my support, even though I am tempted to boycott like Angr. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose constraining romaji entries

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have two formats of romanization entries to serve as a precedent, Chinese and Gothic. Creating a third format without any reason is a thoughtless disregard for the readability of this reference. How can editors argue that this is so thoroughly designed and call a vote about "format" while refusing to explain its essential form? And who uses a colon to write a two-word imperative statement? —Michael Z. 2013-04-02 15:28 z
Michael. Pinyin, Gothic and Romaji were all developed independently and they don't even belong to the same supercategory (like "Romanizations by language") and I don't know if they ever could. As I explained multiple times, pinyin entries can't have a limited number of parameters because of homophones. The choice of the word "See" was a result of a consensus of JA contributors, my opinion on whether we should use Romanization of (Gothic), See (Romaji) and nothing (Pinyin) is weak but why should we follow Gothic if Japanese may have several lines of Romanization of, which will look ugly. We ended up having See but I don't know anything about how Gothic standards came up to be so. There are inconsistencies in Gothic romanisation entries. Template:ja-romaji doesn't allow such inconsistencies.
We don't have to stick to formats of Chinese and Gothic. Gothic and Pinyin examples were only used in the discussion to show that romanisation entries can serve as links, they are not meant to have definitions, and not as a means to stop the work on the Japanese romaji. There's perfect readability of both the result and the code and it's very to use.
I have removed the colon after See.
Re: "...while refusing to explain its essential form...". Please clarify what is still not clear.
Re: "..call a vote about "format"". The name of the vote was chosen by Dan Polansky.
You seem to have jumped from tentative support to opposition (if I understand correctly). As you yourself pointed out Wiktionary:ELE#Definitions doesn't say must have definitions. Is it because we still use the wording "See" despite your protest? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am opposing this just because the design/copywriting details don't appear to be thought through. We don't have to stick to, e.g., the Gothic format, but if we diverge from it then we should articulate some reason justifying it.
How many links can a romaji entry have? I was under the impression that it is only one or up to two, for katakana and hiragana. —Michael Z. 2013-04-03 14:19 z
What is "copywriting details"? The design was thought, discussed and agreed on. Where were you? The reasons are already articulated many times. What has Gothic to do with Japanese? I didn't know Gothic romanisation entries exist before I was told. But what is different? Wording? Originally we had Hiragana: or Katakana:, then we changed to See: to allow for mixed scripts (hiragana/katakana/Roman letters, numerals). The definition line question was already explained. Gothic romanisation could be done the same way as Japanese with less parameters.
Maximum 6. "zu" has 4 links. Combinations like ああ, あー, アア, あー will all give "ā". Romaji with ō may be linked to hiragana おお, おう, おー, katakana オオ, オウ, オー. Small　つ (tsu) - っ may be silent at the end of a word after vowels, thus giving more variants. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, copy=wording of the text used in entries, like "Romanization of" vs. "See:" vs. "See". Now we know about Gothic, and the question of consistency needs to be addressed.
Where was I? Why? Look, Anatoli, I wasn't involved in a big conversation about romaji. Now it has become evident that this is relevant to the design of entries in three or more languages, and that it is a controversial edge case not covered perfectly clearly by our guidelines. Don't imply that I don't have a right to give my input. We all make an investment here, and I recognize your amazing contribution, but that doesn't mean any of us owns some part of this project. —Michael Z. 2013-04-04 00:50 z

[edit] Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Consensus has already been achieved; this vote is superfluous. —Angr 08:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. This whole thing has been a muddle since shortly after the JA editors arrived at consensus. I'm even muddled about whether it would be better to write here in the ====Abstain==== section, or below in the ====Oppose having this vote==== section. At any rate, it seems like there's already agreement amongst all the folks who might be working on JA romaji entries. Let my post here then count as Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposed to voting on largely settled issues, and Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposed to setting things in stone when discussion and consensus building should suffice (and so far had sufficed).

    @Michael, it sounds like your opposition is to the format of romaji entries, and not to the general idea of reducing romaji entries to limited stub content. Is that a correct interpretation of your comments above? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, quite. It's all part of the extended discussion. —Michael Z. 2013-04-02 16:04 z

[edit] Oppose having this vote

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    Can I vote here as well as above? If we're going to have an unwanted, badly executed vote, it might as well be clear... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see why not. I will find it funny if this vote shows that there's consensus to make a change, yet explicitly rejects codifying that consensus... but (if I may preach to the choir) if this vote establishes some format for romaji entries, it sets that format in stone, such that editors will have to run more time-consuming policy votes any time some detail of romaji formatting needs to be updated. Hence, I reject the idea of voting upon the issue, and prefer to let consensus on a format be reached by discussion. - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I don't know what -sche intended by this section heading, but nothing prevents you from writing "I don't want this vote", "I support the voted-on proposal but I object to having this vote" or the like as part of your support vote. In general, you can write in your vote comment anything that you think is related to what is being voted on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Consensus was had, and any who might oppose on this vote should have discussed there first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Decision