Talk:直男

?
I believe "straight" should be clarified. Does it mean "heterosexual"? "Straight" can have various meanings in English. Is this a vernacular, non-scientific term used only in informal/colloquial situations? Is it of recent vintage? These things should be explained before the editor is on to the next entry, and, of course, like all Mandarin entries, an etymology section should be provided, even a rudimentary one. 71.66.97.228 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When one says a 'straight man' in English, it usually refers to a heterosexual man. Can I ask why an etymology section needs to be provided in every Mandarin entry? Sometimes it's a simple case of a compound which is easy to work out from its indivdual components Is this 'must'/'necessary' rule recorded anywhere? I surely have never heard this rule? If you want to implement this rule, then provide your reasoning and we can have a vote. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's only fair to the end user on the ground, who is often not some highbrow linguist like we are. A rudimentary etymology is not too much to ask and often takes just a few seconds. 71.66.97.228 22:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rudimentary etymology like how? 直 + 男? How does this add value to the entry? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For one, since this is a direct translation of "straight" "man," it seems likely that this term was invented after the Chinese learned about the term "straight (man)" from some European language, probably English. There was probably some other term or terms (or no term at all) prior to contact with the West. That would all be part of the etymology--obviously not just X=straight + X=man, but also including "this term was likely influenced by, and is a direct translation of, the English word "straight man." All of that is useful to the user on the ground to really understand this term, and would have taken just a few seconds to do. But, then, you already knew all of that and didn't need to have asked me. 71.66.97.228 22:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but you are making a specific case out of this. My question was and still stands: why does every term need an etymology section? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Having a rudimentary etymology shows that we care about the entries we create, and that we care about the users who will use these entries, enough to take the few seconds (or even minutes) it takes to explain the origin of the term. Ignoring the etymology and instead moving on to other, more "fun" tasks, shows that we half-care about our entries and users. The etymologies of Chinese terms of 2 or more characters might be obvious to someone like you, but not to most of our users, who include Mandarin learners.

Finally, it's really not a good idea to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing why we don't need to do something (happening at multiple talk pages recently), rather than actually contributing productively--not doing something is something that happens quite well at this project, often for years at a time! 71.66.97.228 22:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jamesjiao that it is the reader's responsibility to click on the individual characters and see what they mean if an etymology section is absent, in the same way that English entries like tap water, put up expect readers to do the same. Hbrug 05:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What this statement shows is that you haven't read any of the above discussion. 71.66.97.228 05:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What your statement shows is you didn't understand what my statement meant. I obviously responded to this sentence "Rudimentary etymology like how? 直 + 男? How does this add value to the entry?" posted by Jamesjiao, who was using this to respond to your statement that an explanation of the literal etymology could be useful. You don't have to be overly critical of others' work. You clearly understood what "straight man" meant when you opened this discussion, so it's unnecessary that you post your criticism here when you could improve the entry (on details that you think require improvement) yourself. Hbrug 06:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my first comment again. I didn't become critical until the second editor started insisting again and again that he shouldn't add the things I suggested be added to the entry, so we have the best entry possible. We can all work together to create the best and most informative entries possible, including for this term. The information I suggested be added to the entry is very, very reasonable. 71.66.97.228 06:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)