Talk:吃飽

Untitled
I know that many of you will probably support the change made by to the https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:zh-l page today. But I want it stated for the record that I have stood up against it. I will never support it (unless convinced by some kind of reasonable argument) and am vehemently against it! If Hanyu Pinyin can be written next to Chinese characters to serve as a guide to pronunciation, then other romanization systems ABSOLUTELY ought to be allowed the same dignity in the cases where there is no known Hanyu Pinyin form. Hanyu Pinyin is not the end all be all of the Chinese languages. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I never really liked the initial rollout of automatic Pinyin, but most visitors are probably interested in Standard Chinese, so whatever. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this is rude to do. If you all really want to totally eliminate Pinyin, then that's okay by me I guess. But to have Hanyu Pinyin next to every word and character on this site and then to not allow alternate romanizations air to breathe when no Hanyu Pinyin is available seems deeply wrong to me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC) (modified)


 * Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh-l/documentation. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what happened to Template:zh-l today. What is it that you want, User:Geographyinitiative? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The text that was changed now reads as "Pinyin, POJ, Jyutping, or other transliterations as applicable", whereas the text previously read as "Pinyin, POJ, Jyutping, or other transliterations as applicable by dialectical prominence" --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This demo (by suzukaze-c?) allows the reader to switch between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese. I wonder if we can allow the user to switch between dialect/romanization similarly, via a floating control-panel? --Dine2016 (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've thought about using JS so that users can use any romanization they want to, including custom romanization. Thinking about proper implementation has prevented me from actually doing anything, though. It would be pretty lame if someone rewrote it ten years from now, having the same thoughts that I did. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this the place to discuss this?


 * If it is, (1) every Sinophone country in the world now recognizes Hanyu Pinyin as the sole official romanization of the language; (2) having *some* romanization is going to be vastly preferable for the vast majority users of the English-language Wiktionary, rather than naked characters; (3) pinyin should display and should be the default. (4) Individual users' individual preferences for some alternate romanization to display when available (Cantonese, Shanghainese, Min Nan, whatever) is something to take up with the site's code monkeys. They're all still as available as possible on clickthrough, so no one's really being underserved by the status quo in this respect except the 12 guys who still use Wade that we've never bothered to add in, despite its vastly more common historical use in English compared to (e.g.) bo'mofo and (jeez) gwoyeu romatzyh.


 * If it's not, just copy/paste that to the eventual forum. — LlywelynII  15:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, Hanyu Pinyin is the standard romanization used in Mainland China (since decades ago) and in Taiwan (officially since Ma Ying-jeou), including in Singapore (official language) and in Malaysia (one of the school medium of instruction) for the Chinese (Mandarin) language. Even the study of Chinese language around the world in the non-Chinese speaking countries use Hanyu Pinyin first at their early stage or for their newly introduced characters to the students. So yeah, we have to accept it that Hanyu Pinyin is the very minimum romanization needed for Chinese characters pronunciation. If there are more than Hanyu Pinyin (e.g. Wade-Giles), by all means please add that also (e.g. for cities in Taiwan, such as Taipei, Changhua, Kaohsiung etc) and also some of the special romanization of few words (e.g. Tsinghua in Tsinghua University in Beijing etc). And also, for Hong Kong and Macau, where Cantonese is the official, then Jyutping should always accompany their words. And again (as so not to be too Mainland China-centric), for any simplified Chinese characters, please also always include its equivalent traditional Chinese characters, unless the character has the same shape in its simplified and traditional form. Chongkian (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me bring the topic back down to a simple question. Here it is: should the word '食飽' (as found on this page) be accompanied by some kind of romanized form? I argue in favor, because if this website adds Hanyu Pinyin after almost all characters and Chinese words, then why not add other romanized forms when there is no standard Hanyu Pinyin form for a given word or character?


 * If we are going to have romanized forms after Chinese words, lets go all the way- no half measures. No need to hide these romanizations from the readers. I will add them all myself manually if I have to. Step by step, year by year.


 * (As for the larger debate about whether or not we should even have romanized forms, I won't comment on it here. I have no opinion.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * unless explicitly marked by dialect. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 23:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Question: why choose Cantonese over Min Nan? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. To me, either alternative is technically acceptable. But to have no romanization is to pretend that Hanyu Pinyin is the only romanization. This website is full of non-contextualized Hanyu Pinyin in the "Chinese" section. We don't need to shy away from the romanizations for other dialects. I say show any available romanization. In individual cases where there is a dispute about which dialect should get shown, it will get resolved by community discussion. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need to contextualize Hanyu Pinyin, because it is the standard that people have come to expect. It is the de-facto "Chinese", and has clear prestige over other forms of Chinese. We talk about the Xianbei, not the Sjenpjie, even though Mandarin didn't exist back then. On the other hand, we shouldn't arbitrarily choose between dialects. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have said here that, "Hanyu Pinyin ... is the de-facto "Chinese",". If you can prove that statement, then I can accept it. But until you can prove your statement, I will work on the premise that Hanyu Pinyin is not the de-facto "Chinese". "Chinese" is the de-facto "Chinese". "Chinese" includes a plethora of dialect languages and romanizations. They must be represented. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like everyone to comment on the question of whether or not "Hanyu Pinyin ... is the de-facto "Chinese"." I believe Chinese includes more things than Hanyu Pinyin, and all I want to do is give the readers of the dictionary a look at the different romanizations. I need to see proof that "Hanyu Pinyin ... is the de-facto "Chinese"." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can remove me from your list of pings. I have no opinion on the question.
 * ―Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * : Don't do anything unilaterally. It's not about suppressing any of the dialects but about the common sense for end-users. No-one will support your un-unifying ideas. You have to learn to handle all Chinese lects, which use Chinese characters under one L2. Your actions don't make sense. If you add dialectal transliterations to Chinese entries, you have to provide each topolect and provide s to each instance advising users, to which lect they belong. Rather than fighting the practice accepted by all Chinese editors, why don't you work on adding more Min Nan contents? All topolects have thrived after unification but they have to be clearly separated and handled separately, as they are with and, there's simply no infrastructure to handle multiple non-Mandarin terms in one go. If there were it would be a clutter, perhaps something will be developed in the future.  doesn't produce any transliteration for blue-linked entries, if a Mandarin term is not defined. Why? Because there is no default variety after Mandarin. You can't even decide yourself if it should be Min Nan or Cantonese. If you don't like the way things are, create your own vote and try to make it pass or work on other projects. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict) Next thing I will discuss is, if there's a merit in blocking User:Geographyinitiative for three months. I don't think it's harsh. Cool down and think if you're being rational. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not add romanizations after all Chinese words? That's literally all I'm saying. What's the problem? I need to see proof that "Hanyu Pinyin ... is the de-facto "Chinese"." The other romanization systems are just fine too, and if there's no Hanyu Pinyin form, then there's no reason to shy away from them. Why suppress the other romanization systems? Just let it go- they exist too. Sorry. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought about this topic a long time ago. I think it is fine to have pinyin as brackets for all entries that have Mandarin readings. However, it would not be feasible to add non-Mandarin 'lect transcriptions for those that don't, because there are so many (which would we choose? Cantonese, Hakka, Min Nan, Wu, Gan, etc.?), not to mention the question of which transcription system to use and which regions to transcribe - e.g. for Min Nan, there are half a dozen different areas with different pronunciations. So I don't see how the current system for bracket transcriptions can be improved (if that is what you're asking about, I can't quite tell). ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. In my view, you don't have to "choose" which dialect to use. You just do it as it comes up on a case by case basis. If there are objections, you deal with them on the spot, or whenever they come up. Eventually, rules and ideas about how to do it right will grow up organically. You figure it out as it comes. Go with the flow. That's my opinion. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ＯＰＥＮ　ＹＯＵＲ　ＭＩＮＤ　lol~ Let the people see the romanizations. Make this the best Chinese English dictionary on Earth. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If we had a template, which will expand as:
 * Do we want that? It's even incomplete. Might as well go the entry instead. Open your brain and stop yelling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we want that? It's even incomplete. Might as well go the entry instead. Open your brain and stop yelling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we want that? It's even incomplete. Might as well go the entry instead. Open your brain and stop yelling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we want that? It's even incomplete. Might as well go the entry instead. Open your brain and stop yelling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we want that? It's even incomplete. Might as well go the entry instead. Open your brain and stop yelling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (To Geographyinitiative) Well, what you are suggesting would require a lot of manual editing that would waste our efforts. As long as all the relevant data is at the lemma entry, what's the point? Until we have a way to display non-Mandarin 'lect transcriptions in the brackets in a useful, unintrusive and automatic way, then I don't see how your opinion can be implemented. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my point too. Geographyinitiative wastes his and other people's times. He see a tree but not the forest. There is no elegant way to handle this. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Hanyu Pinyin ... is the de-facto "Chinese"." That's dangerous, and it's not proven to be true, and it's at the heart of the reason my edit was rejected on this page. That's what's called "bad" in English. The point of this dictionary is to show people Chinese. That's it. Don't worry about the hypothetical forest of problems, think about the trees. Once you start planting trees, the work gets on pretty quick, and eventually you have a forest. These are important issues. I'm not wasting your time- there are other users who have wondered about these questions too. This is a question of moral justice. Yes, things take a long time to do. Stop complaining and start editing. I am not wasting your time. 愚公移山 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something like 食飽 ／ 食饱 ( C  sik6 baau2 , H  sṳ̍t-páu , MD  siĕk-bā , MN  chia̍h-pá ). --Dine2016 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is fine, I think User:Suzukaze-c worked on the same. The problem at hand is Geographyinitiative uses random and unlabelled transliterations - Cantonese or Min Nan, where normally hanyu pinyin is expected, which only looks very confusing and unprofessional.
 * Your suggested displayed would require a significant effort OR it has to be automated - to read transliterations from defined entries. It's probably doable but will require some skills and efforts. It still needs to be agreed on - it doesn't have to be intrusive to show half a dozen transliterations on a synonym. Imagine seeing a whole three-column list of these! For the time being we have to stop overzealous editors from breaking what has been working. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't aware of Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh-l/documentation.
 * re: Use of pinyin seems common in scholarly works like the ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese or https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/831/1.0089868/2, where it works more like a transliteration of the characters. Also, of the dialectal dictionaries sorted by pronunciation, those focusing on one dialect may be sorted by IPA, but those focusing on multiple dialects, such as 新华方言词典 and 汉语方言大词典, are usually sorted by pinyin. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"The myth concerns a Foolish Old Man of 90 years who lived near a pair of mountains (given in some tellings as the Taihang and the Wangwu mountains, in Yu Province). He was annoyed by the obstruction caused by the mountains and sought to dig through them with hoes and baskets. When questioned as to the seemingly impossible nature of his task, the Foolish Old Man replied that while he may not finish this task in his lifetime, through the hard work of himself, his children, and their children, and so on through the many generations, some day the mountains would be removed if he persevered. The gods in Heaven, impressed with his hard work and perseverance, ordered the mountains separated." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We are on the side of knowledge, inclusion, and diversity, not promoting worn-out "my way or the highway" nonsense based on outdated notions. If there is no Hanyu Pinyin form for a word or character, allow me and others to add a dialect romanization if we so choose. If you don't like the other romanizations, don't look at them. They are not for Mandarin, they are for the dialects. There's nothing wrong with Hanyu Pinyin- it's a fine system. There are other dialects with their romanizations, and they all fall under the scope of "Chinese". You have not proven that "Hanyu Pinyin ... is the de-facto "Chinese"." If you don't like the romanization I choose for a given word, change it to what you want. The community will develop an understanding about how to handle these issues over time. It will develop naturally. Don't be afraid of it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What Dine2016 proposed here looks cool. Anything is fine. Just don't pretend that the dialect romanizations are too unimportant to be shown. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you all again in this manner, but there is a grave necessity since history and the languages of minority peoples are being given second class treatment in the face of bullying and something needs to be done to make this a dictionary rather than a propaganda platform. I like Dine's idea as a start for sure. The statement that Hanyu Pinyin is the de-facto "Chinese" has not yet been proven. When it is proven, and when Chinese is no longer Chinese, but is called Hanyu Pinyin, then I can concede. Chinese is a macrolanguage family with a long history that includes disparate elements unfamiliar to modern Mandarin speakers. This is 2019 not 1984. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. Choosing Cantonese over other dialects is nonsense.
 * 2. Displaying ~every single dialect under the sun~ in one line, within one set of parentheses is also nonsense.
 * 3. Indeed, it is 2019, where the prestige language of the Sinosphere is 现代标准汉语.
 * 3.5. Mandarin held prestige as far back as 1884 as well.
 * —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Heavy nonsensical ranting is expected to follow, "where's ya proof that Mandarin holds prestige...", blah-blah, LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mandarin's status as de-facto Chinese is pretty much indisputable. If we just focus on dictionaries, Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian, Hanyu Da Zidian and Hanyu Da Cidian only have the word Hanyu (Chinese) in the title - they all only give Mandarin pronunciations. In all regions where Chinese is an official language, one of the standard/official forms of Chinese that is recognized (if not the only) is Mandarin. Now, in 2019, Hanyu Pinyin is also recognized as the official romanization of Mandarin in all regions.
 * BTW,, I don't see why you keep pinging inactive editors and an editor who has requested to be removed from your pings. This is disrespectful behaviour that does not help the problem. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remove me from your list of pings. I have no opinion on the question.
 * ―Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think including additional dialects is a plus, but it would require a different philosophy to. We can first put the following into the output HTML:
 * 中國／中国 ( M. Zhōngguó; M-S.  Zong1gue2; DG.  Җун1гуй2/Җун1гуә2; C.  zung1 gwok3; C-T.  zuung1 gok2;  MD.  Dṳ̆ng-guók; MN.  Tiong-kok; MN-T.  dong1 gog4, “ China ” ) [copied from Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh-l/documentation ]

and use JS to show only
 * 中國 ( M. Zhōngguó, “ China ” )

as well as providing a control panel like ☑️ Traditional Chinese ☐ Simplified Chinese ☑️ Mandarin (Standard) [ Pinyin | Zhuyin | ... ] ☐ Mandarin (Chengdu) [ Sichuanese Pinyin | ... ] ... so that the user can read only the parts they want. Some online Cantonese learning resources allow the user to switch between Jyutping and Yale, so we can do something similar.

In addition, we can also change hardcoded romanizations like Its pronunciation was changed to ái in December 1962 ... to Its pronunciation was changed to in December 1962 ... so that JS-enabled users have the option to see them in other scripts/romanizations (such as Zhuyin).

However, this would be a big change. If we don't want to reduplicate every pronunciation like  we probably want something like, but this is as flawed as the current  fetching the first Mandarin pronunciation from the lemma entry, because a simple reordering of the pronunciations of an entry could unintentionally break other pages. Perhaps we can give each an identifier, such as  and then, but that means a lot of cross-references works which ought to be automated but could not due to the page-based MediaWiki infrastructure, such as looking up the identifier. (On Wikipedia, there's no warning when you make a link to a disambiguation page, though on Baidu Baike there are :) Moreover, some dialects may have slightly different pronunciations for particlar senses, but ones not worth splitting, which makes things more difficult. I doubt if fetching readings from lemma entries can be automated at all. And typing them all by hand would require a lot of effort. But if it can be automated, it would greatly benefit word lists and user-custom 生词本 which the user can use to queue pronunciations. --Dine2016 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm here disputing Mandarin is the de-facto Chinese, then how many people do I represent? I'm thinking that there are some people that don't yet know this fact. I would go so far as to assert that there are several forms of Chinese- "de-facto" as it were. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Break more sections on a per-dialect basis
Adding dialects (and romanizations) is a good thing, but more careful planning is necessary first. Random romanizations are unprofessional, and putting multiple tagged romanizations in the parentheses of a single is not ideal either: not only does it look bloated, it also provides no means to differentiate between true dialectal words, such as 我 (M. wǒ, C. ngo5), and MSC words with dialectal readings, such as 我們 ／ 我们 (M. wǒmen, C. ngo5 mun4). I suggest that we employ a format similar to that of Chinese translations in English entries: make more templates such as, and break larger synonym sections like this:

Synonyms
This is meant as an intermediate format between our current “ ” and detailed tables. Of course the templates should automatically fetch romanizations where possible, and more words should be added and sorted by frequency on a per-dialect basis. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a great concept to me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)