Talk:カラオケ

@Theknightwho: Hi. What are you doing? Nesting Chinese varieties was decided by a vote. Unnesting is against the policy, IMO. It doesn't matter if etymologies are different. They often are. We still nest translations/descendants under Chinese header, as in coffee/translations or.

Why should be thrown all over the place? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Atitarev That only applies to translations, though. How could it apply to descendants when different lects can borrow independently or from each other? It doesn’t make sense to group them like that. Pinging @Wpi @Justinrleung @RcAlex36 for comment. Theknightwho (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This makes no sense at all for descendants. See e.g. bus where the Taiwanese Hakka/Hokkien ones are borrowed via Japanese. – Wpi (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho, @Wpi, @Justinrleung, @RcAlex36: It would make some sense if any work was done on showing the etymological tree, e.g. which Chinese variety or any language borrowed from which language.
 * An example would be where Chinese/Dungan (still nested in both cases!) has two etymological paths - directly from Russian or phono-semantically, cognate with Mandarin.




 * Simply separating Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. as languages where even Norwegian/Bokmål is nested, is wrong.
 * At bus nesting is missing as well, the way it should be:
 * Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev Why do we need Chinese nesting in descendants? What purpose does it serve? Your example just adds clutter. It makes sense in translations because it’s intuitive, but descendant trees don’t operate like that. Norwegian also separates these too, given that Bokmål has Danish as an ancestor while Nynorsk does not. Theknightwho (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho: Nesting and grouping varieties together under one L2 header IS a clutter. Refer to the vote. I won't look for it, you probably know what it was about. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev It only applies to translations, though. Theknightwho (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho: It's the style adopted since the day vote passed, at least by most editors. The language codes "cmn", "yue", "nan", "dng", etc. automatically nests in the translation-adder because this functionality was asked by Chinese editors. The etymological tree is done mostly manually, hence some inconsistencies exist and there are still editors who oppose the merger or don't understand it fully. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev The style in translations, yes! Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese specifically refers to translations, not descendant sections. It does not make sense to add an extra Chinese header multiple times in a descendant tree, as in your example, as it adds nothing of value. Plus you’re also merging in Dungan which that vote explicitly opposes, so I don’t really understand where you’re getting this from. Theknightwho (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho: After Dungan's transliterations and IPA modules were developed, Dungan has been added to readings to Chinese entries dgҖун1гуй2/Җун1гуә2 as in . If you oppose nesting Dungan, romanised Min Nan, etc. under Chinese L2 header or think nesting adds no value you can raise it. I can see you're now determined to undermine me. I am out of this discussion. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev It’s got nothing to do with the L2 header. It’s the fact that the vote has nothing to do with descendant sections. I don’t feel like my point is complicated or difficult to understand, and I don’t understand why you keep insisting the vote says something that it does not. There is no obligation to do something which the vote doesn’t make any mention of.
 * I am especially confused that you are simultaneously insisting we follow the vote while you’re also trying to expand its purview to say something it explicitly disallows, too. That’s just nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev I fully agree with the points made by TKW here. It is meaningless and unnecessary to add an empty Chinese line in descendants. It is never mentioned in the Unified Chinese vote, please stop making things up. I will proceed to remove any such incorrect formatting. – Wpi (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're jumping too quickly to conclusions. Theknightwho is just talking about the formatting for descendants. I don't think the formatting of descendants was ever decided by a vote. AFAIK, the de facto most common way of formatting Chinese descendants is to not nest them under a Chinese layer. Is there any evidence that suggests there's a de jure formatting for Chinese descendants? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho, @Wpi, @Justinrleung: Maybe I have jumped to conclusions. This is how I understood and interpreted it, used it myself and I believe also noticed others doing. I was wrong. Change it the way you see fit. Thanks and sorry. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev The style in translations, yes! Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese specifically refers to translations, not descendant sections. It does not make sense to add an extra Chinese header multiple times in a descendant tree, as in your example, as it adds nothing of value. Plus you’re also merging in Dungan which that vote explicitly opposes, so I don’t really understand where you’re getting this from. Theknightwho (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho: After Dungan's transliterations and IPA modules were developed, Dungan has been added to readings to Chinese entries dgҖун1гуй2/Җун1гуә2 as in . If you oppose nesting Dungan, romanised Min Nan, etc. under Chinese L2 header or think nesting adds no value you can raise it. I can see you're now determined to undermine me. I am out of this discussion. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev It’s got nothing to do with the L2 header. It’s the fact that the vote has nothing to do with descendant sections. I don’t feel like my point is complicated or difficult to understand, and I don’t understand why you keep insisting the vote says something that it does not. There is no obligation to do something which the vote doesn’t make any mention of.
 * I am especially confused that you are simultaneously insisting we follow the vote while you’re also trying to expand its purview to say something it explicitly disallows, too. That’s just nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev I fully agree with the points made by TKW here. It is meaningless and unnecessary to add an empty Chinese line in descendants. It is never mentioned in the Unified Chinese vote, please stop making things up. I will proceed to remove any such incorrect formatting. – Wpi (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're jumping too quickly to conclusions. Theknightwho is just talking about the formatting for descendants. I don't think the formatting of descendants was ever decided by a vote. AFAIK, the de facto most common way of formatting Chinese descendants is to not nest them under a Chinese layer. Is there any evidence that suggests there's a de jure formatting for Chinese descendants? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho, @Wpi, @Justinrleung: Maybe I have jumped to conclusions. This is how I understood and interpreted it, used it myself and I believe also noticed others doing. I was wrong. Change it the way you see fit. Thanks and sorry. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho, @Wpi, @Justinrleung: Maybe I have jumped to conclusions. This is how I understood and interpreted it, used it myself and I believe also noticed others doing. I was wrong. Change it the way you see fit. Thanks and sorry. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)