Talk:Zhongmu

Brackets
Concerning diff, Template:quote-book says that brackets=1 means: "Surround a quotation with brackets. This indicates that the quotation either contains a mere mention of a term (for example, "some people find the word manoeuvre hard to spell") rather than an actual use of it (for example, "we need to manoeuvre carefully to avoid causing upset"), or does not provide an actual instance of a term but provides information about related terms." When I encounter non-Hanyu Pinyin/variant Hanyu Pinyin words, I put them in brackets to try to help avoid deletion by another editor diff (as the word is not technically relevant to the entry in question, since there is a different spelling/etc) by claiming legitimacy for the cite as a "related term". Then, if over time I do find more cites, I can make a separate entry, or, if I can't find more cites, I can add a footnote talking about the variant form- see Houjie. Now, let me know this: is it within my discretion to use brackets for the 1966/54 cite on this page, or is it against the rules? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As the documentation says, the brackets are meant to indicate that a term is being . See bodewash for an example. Whether it's an alternative spelling has no bearing on whether it's being used or mentioned. (Alternative forms are also different from related terms.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you make of the phrase "or does not provide an actual instance of a term but provides information about related terms." Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, alternative spellings or forms aren't related terms, i.e. they would be listed under the "Alternative forms" section and not the "Related terms" section, as indeed you're already doing. The point of the brackets parameter is to indicate that the citation isn't suitable for attesting the term, but at RFV it's understood that any spelling can be used to attest a main lemma, or in other words three citations in whatever spelling suffice to attest a main lemma (of course, which one is most suitable to serve as the headword is a different question). One can question whether Wade–Giles spellings are indeed only orthographic in English, since they often end up being pronounced somewhat differently than Pinyin ones, but they are at any rate still forms and not separate terms. For surnames specifically, as opposed to toponyms and other borrowings, this is murkier since different standardised spellings do not have the same meaning, i.e. they have different referents as referring to different sets of people. In that case the brackets may be useful, though it's unclear why you wouldn't just put the citations at the relevant form. Hope that clears it up a bit. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)
 * I really enjoy talking with you because you have a great perspective on issues that I have been unsure about for years. One more issue for Zhongmu versus Chungmou that is relatively unique for this entry is this: Chungmou actually IS intended to be pronounced differently from Zhongmu. The correct Wade-Giles for Zhongmu is Chung-mu, not mou, and Chungmou maps to Zhongmou in pinyin. Both pronunciations are possible in Mandarin, though mu seems preferred and mou is basically an error. So how does that play into your thought process? I would make separate entries for every variant. However, I don't want to concentrate on finding one form of one word in a hurry, because that mindset usually leads to forcing an interpretation of what I'm seeing, rather than naturally accumulating evidence of various variant forms. Many of these pinyin words can be refer to multiple locations or people, and Google Books can be unreliable on various fronts. If I focus on one variant form at a time, there is a tendency to rush and to let more bs in, whereas if I am glancing over groups of terms and not looks ng for any one word in particular and making lateral discoveries (example- found Langshan but in it was a variant of Yangtze) in that process, the results seem more solid. If I find enough to reach WT:ATTEST for Chungmou one day, that's fine, but I like to avoid rushing to find cites to create the highest quality cites possible. Focusing on the cites and THEN what the cites indicate is my way. In the meantime, I will just put closely related stuff on entry. And some closely related stuff may be unattestable for Wiktionary, but these unique instances could be of value if a reader did find it in the wild and were searching for the pinyin equivalent. Unusual variants are a common and serious barrier to comprehension of English language materials related to Chinese related topics and hence these one-off variant cites included on the main entry are my way of helping people be able to search for the term and find something. I apologize if this does not make sense. Thanks for any advice. No need to respond if this is too silly. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC) (Modified)