Talk:鎮魂

hhira
Well, we could write it down explicitly, or let readers guess. We are not like Daijirin, which has already dealt with historical spelling for all words and therefore can afford to omit it when it's the same as the modern spelling. Imagine, is  or ? ? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I honestly thought that had been inserted by the new-entry accelerator code.  Since it was intentional, and your reasoning certainly makes sense, let's restore that.  :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Adding hhira to all words whose hhira differs from hira, and adding hhira to all words whose hhira is the same as hira, are two equally tedious tasks. The latter is obviously meaningless when the same effort can be put on the former. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is better to be explicit. A 'missing' hhira could mean that
 * no one has added it
 * hhira == hira
 * hhira is n/a (example: modern words).
 * This ambiguity does not help anyone, and eliminating it is not meaningless. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * By saying "eliminating this ambiguity". You need to add hhira to all words of this kind, perhaps thousands of them. It is way much better if you put this effort on adding hhira to those which really need them. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * When I make an entry, I note if the monolingual dictionaries indicate the historical spelling. No time is wasted on my part, as I check every time and use the knowledge gained in that moment to fill out the hhira field. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We are not to overlook those already existing pages. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Existing pages may lack a number of things, and historical hiragana is just one of them. Someone might be interested in adding pitch accent, and someone might be interested in historical kana spelling. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My point is that your argument is "no time is wasted on my part", but this is not your private bussiness. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My argument is all that I have written, not just "no time is wasted on my part". In truth, removing ambiguity is the largest reason to do it for me. And no one is obligated to add historical hiragana; an editor chooses what they want to edit, and any time spent is their own business. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't understand what else arguments you have written other than "no time is wasted on my part" is relevant to this topic. Do you mean existing pages should be overlooked because they lack a number of things? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking up hhira in a reference dictionary takes time. Editing an entry takes time.
 * The statement "two equally tedious tasks" is largely false. Words where hhira != hira cannot be magically segregated and focused on by a human editor: the human editor must investigate all words to determine if hhira == hira is true or false. Time is only saved if hhira == hira && the editor chooses to not edit Wiktionary, at the cost of leaving ambiguity due to the fact that Wiktionary is incomplete (see the numbered list I wrote above at UTC 04:58).
 * I don't know how to make it clearer. Something is being misunderstood by somebody, and I don't know what. I'll be honest, having this argument is also a tedious task that takes away effort that can be used to contribute to the dictionary. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "the human editor must investigate all words to determine if hhira == hira is true or false" But you also do this if you want to add hhira for all hhira == hira. Or are you just adding hhira to some of hhira == hira but not all? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To pitch in my two cents, I continue to agree with Suzukaze's initial explanation in this thread -- reducing amgiguity is a good thing, so including  even in cases where   ==   is a net positive.
 * This is not a requirement, so any editor who doesn't care to look up  values can happily ignore this.
 * But since it does appear to be a net positive (enhancing the information available in our entries), this is also information that we should not remove from entries that have it (so long as it is correct, of course).
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)