Talk:CAVALO^LISTRA

Incorrect page name
This page name needs to be moved to the correct Appendix:Sign language handshapes name, proven by About sign languages. However, I have been informed that speedy deletion is not an option, and according to Talk:A@Side-PalmForward Upanddown, this issue is not within the scope of RFV. Also, I don't speak Brazilian Sign Language, so I can't move it myself. What should I do? --Numberguy6 (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess you could open a request for move, or a request for deletion if you think it should outright removed. But I'll tell you in advance that I will argue against either of these solutions. I don't see why our Libras entries should use an orthographical system that is not known or used by anyone when we could use one that exists in the real world. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The system that has been established in WT policy was designed for all sign languages, so we should use that. The system you are promoting was designed solely for LIBRAS. Also, the title actually tells you information about the sign. For example, the page A@Side-PalmForward will tell me information about the sign from the title alone, while this title will tell you no information, unless you already know the signs for CAVALO and LISTRA. Also also, if you want to argue against WT policy, this is not the place. Also also also, no transcription system is an inherent part of any sign language. --Numberguy6 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it is possible for a sign to have completely different meanings depending on the sign language. For example, Corna@Side-PalmForward is the letter H in French Sign Language, the letter Y in Icelandic Sign Language, and the letter ㅐ (ae) in Korean Sign Language. However, if we used your transcription system, then this information would be left out. --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unnecessarily belligerent about this. Again, I suggest taking it to one of the discussion or request pages since an argument between two editors will not really lead anywhere.
 * But let me make one thing clear: this entry does not use “my” transcription; it is a real system used in the real world to write Libras. Nor am I “promoting” it. I added the entry under this title because the word is attested with this title according to our criteria for attestation. In fact, if I wanted to use Wiktionary as a platform to promote a particular writing system for Libras, it would be SignWriting. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RFM discussion: May–July 2020
This is a Brazilian Sign Language word. The page title does not use the correct Appendix:Sign language entry names. I have already tried speedy-deleting it, and RFV'ing it isn't an option. Can someone please move this to the correct page name? --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This page uses a real and attested spelling. The spelling uses the Sistema de Notação em Palavras orthography, which is the most widespread orthographical system in scholarly works on Brazilian Sign Language.
 * This sign is also attested as, (both using the same orthographical system) and with the SignWriting spelling if anyone is interested in adding those. I could not attest it as written with the ELiS system.
 * I don't think we should use a clunky spelling that is likely not known -- let alone used -- by anyone who writes in Libras in lieu of an existing spelling. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Background: historically, Libras was transcribed by translating the meaning of any signed text to Portuguese and writing it down in standard Portuguese (which has many grammatical markers that Libras lacks). As understanding of the linguistic nature of sign languages grew, it became obvious that such a practice was wholly inadequate. So instead, a system whereby Portuguese spellings where used to represent individual signs without any inserted grammatical features (in theory -- in practice the Portuguese spelling used was often marked for gender, for example).
 * In the late 90s this practice was standardised into the Sistema de Notação em Palavras (also known by other names). This system extirpates all linguistic features of Portuguese from written Libras and has a one-to-one representation of written word to sign. In practice, though, its precepts are not always followed consistently.
 * Beginning in the early 2000s, there has been a great effort to promote the use of SignWriting for Libras. SignWriting is not common in scholarly works, but it is used in Capovilla's Libras dictionary. As such, we could easily attest and add Libras words in SignWriting(but not to the exclusion of other spellings IMO).
 * Many other systems have been proposed for Libras. The only one that has gained any appreciable amount of traction is Escrita de Língua de Sinais (ELiS). Its usage doesn't come close to that of Sistema de Transcrição em Palavras or SignWriting, and a couple of characters don't have obvious Unicode equivalents, but I think we should add spellings attested in ELiS as well. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the LIBRAS entries, it can still show the LIBRAS-specific spelling. For example, on the page Corna@Nose-Corna@SideChesthigh Corna@RadialHand-Corna@CenterChesthigh, there is something on the head that says "ASL Gloss: IRONIC". That is the ASL equivalent of the LIBRAS spelling. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, even if you don't like the current sign language notation system, we at least need one that covers all sign languages. This one is designed for LIBRAS-exclusive use. SignWriting won't work because it is two-dimensional instead of one-dimensional. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do? Why do you think that? Other languages seem to be doing fine with existing spellings, even those with really bad orthographies like English. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Spoken languages all have a writing system that is a fundamental, inherent part of the language. Sign languages don't have this, so you can't compare sign and spoken languages in this manner. --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true in the slightest. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are languages that started the 20th century normally written in Arabic, had Latin alphabets under Lenin, had Cyrillic alphabets under later Soviet rule, and now have totally new Latin alphabets. Beside the Latin script, English is the sole language for the Shavian and Deseret scripts, is frequently written in Braille, and sometimes in runes and Tengwar.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if a spoken language has multiple valid scripts, it is still used in writing; sign language is never used in writing, except for transcription. Also, even if your system is officially recognized, it could easily have words that use the exact same character sequence as spoken-language words, while my system doesn't. That is why I think that your system is better for the Appendix namespace, so that we don't have the sign-language-and-spoken-language-having-the-same-sequence-of-characters-when-they-represent-different-things conflict. But there's a problem with that, too: all sign languages would have to be moved to the Appendix namespace for consistency, but not all sign languages have official transliteration systems like this. --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many spoken languages are rarely used in writing, especially not if you distinguish "transcription". I might go so far as to say that a majority of languages have no tradition of writing. Sign languages like ASL, from rich educated countries, might be more frequently use in writing than the average language, for example these SignWriting examples. There's no rule that says that entries for different things conflict; mal has entries for a bunch of languages, with many many unrelated words in that entry, from martens to painting to surfboards to mountains to cattle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your example with the world "mal" does not work because, with every language, you can deduce some information from the spelling of the word. Even though you can't deduce its meaning, you can deduce the pronunciation (if you are familiar with the language's phonology). There might be some margin of error; for example, in English, the word "mal" might be pronounced /mɑːl/, /mɒl/, or /mæl/ (if you didn't know the pronunciation), but you know that it isn't pronounced /ɜɹɡ/. However, with your sign language notation system, you can't deduce any information about handshape/movement from the title alone.
 * Also also, if you want to change WT's sign language notation policy, you should start a vote. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I don't believe it was subject to a vote in the first place, meaning that it's not policy and consensus, rather than a vote, should be sufficient to revise it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That appendix page is a product of its time. Its drafters needed an easy way to document signs which were only used (as opposed to mentioned) in video. The exemptions for Limited Documentation Languages have rendered its main rationale moot, and while it may be useful for certain sign languages, I don’t believe there is any reason to ban existing sign language orthographies in favour of it. Especially not Libras which has well established writing systems as I have explained above.
 * If the Libras editing community (currently consisting of me alone, unfortunately) feels it is necessary to use primarily a phonemic system rather than a logographic one, I strongly believe either of the existing systems (i.e. ELiS or Signwriting) should be picked rather than the one from the appendix. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was voted on. See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to use your preferred notation system, then it might be better in the Appendix namespace as opposed to the Main namespace, along with Appendix:Gestures and most constructed languages. This way, we wouldn't have to worry about notation systems being inconsistent between sign languages. However, I haven't changed my mind on which method I prefer. --Numberguy6 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a real attested spelling. I don't see any reason to change it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the "CAVALO^LISTRA" spelling should be included on the page as the human-readable "LIBRAS gloss", just like ASL pages have the human-readable "ASL gloss" included. However, I don't think that "CAVALO^LISTRA" should be the page title, unless LIBRAS (and all other sign languages) are moved to the Appendix namespace instead of the Main namespace. --Numberguy6 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know what your ideal transcription system would look like. Remember that it must cover all sign languages. --Numberguy6 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your issue, not mine. I'm here to record writing as it is used, not try and invent some transcription system that covers all sign languages. Actual writing systems at their best record details needed to understand the language and elide details that are unnecessary, even if they would be key in some other language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically ^this^. We don't enter Russian words and Chinese words and Arabic words and French words all in the same script, we enter them in the different scripts they're attested in. If this is a notation which is actually used for this sign language, and the Appendix:Sign language entry names (hereafter: SLEN) notation is not used for this language, or is used much less often, then I don't see why we would try to move this to the SLEN notation. Trying to conform or contort all sign languages to one notation system seems inadvisable. (Now, whether sign language entries in general should be in the main namespace, and how searchable and / or findable they are? Well, that's a separate problem.) - -sche (discuss) 01:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having some sign languages in the mainspace, but not others, would be extremely confusing and complicated. --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Entry titles for spoken languages give the spelling of the word, but not the meaning; this is the same with SLEN, as it records the same thing as spoken language (handshape, movement, etc.) as opposed to meaning. Your system records the sign's meaning in the title, but not the sign's handshape, etc., which makes it inconsistent with the rest of WT. And even this gives too much credence to your system, as it may give an indication of the meaning, but the unambiguous gloss must still be looked up in the entry itself. --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again "I'm here to record writing as it is used, not try and invent some transcription system that covers all sign languages." If there's writing that includes "CAVALO^LISTRA", then we should record it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the transcription in your system should be noted on the page. The issue is whether or not the title of the page should use it, and there can only be one title. --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cf. color and color, and boja and боја.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I might actually be okay with having something at the page title with your system, but it wouldn't be the actual entry; instead, it would be equivalent to a romanization of Japanese. It would be in Category:Brazilian Sign Language non-lemma forms, and it would point to the SLEN transcription of the sign. See a romanization entry (e.g. ryojin) to see what I am talking about. --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another way to think about it would be: imagine that I am reading a passage, and I come across a word that I don't know the meaning of. All I have to do is search for that word in WT to find the meaning; it is very simple. Now imagine that I am watching a video of someone using sign language, and I see a sign that I don't know the meaning of. Under SLEN, all I have to do is transcribe the sign (very easy for people with sign language experience), and look it up. But with your system, I have to search through every word in WT, and just hope that I find the one that matches the given handshape. --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are two different situations; you can watch a video of either spoken or signed language. Imagine that you are watching a video of someone speaking, and you hear a word. Some languages you might be able to look it up, but others not so much, with Chinese at one extreme. And again, IMO, we should record what is, not worry about the best script. Transcriptions in easier/better scripts are options, like Japanese romanji or Chinese pinyin, but the primary script should be the one actually primarily used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to put this up front: I oppose using Sutton SignWriting for any reason due to its multi-dimensionality making it unsuitable for one-dimensional entry titles. --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that a good reference would be Talk:A@Side-PalmForward Upanddown. --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what User:Metaknowledge said, the SLEN policy was voted on. See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages. This means that it can't be changed without a vote. --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have come up with a compromise solution. SLEN would still be the main transcription system, but transcription systems equivalent to Sistema de Transcrição em Palavras would be equivalent to romanizations. This means that they would get an entry in the mainspace, but would be considered a non-lemma form. --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, who wants to draft a vote on this? What would the basic question be, something like "what system should be used to transcribe sign languages?" where at least two of the options would be "use the current Appendix / SLEN notation for all sign languages" and "for each sign language, use the system that is most commonly used to transcribe it, or another system as agreed upon by the community of editors, with soft or hard redirects from other major transcription systems [that are used for it]"...? - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at drafting Votes/pl-2020-05/Sign language entry names. Please revise the wording as necessary. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kept as is. The vote has ended, with clear support for the use of this kind of orthography. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)