Talk:bağdarlama

RFV discussion: December 2014–July 2015
There is no that word at the Turkish! --123snake45 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever the result of this, it would be nice for this, in Kazakh and Turkish (if that survives) to get an actual definition. program is decently polysemous, and thus a poor definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The people doesn't use/speak it word at Turkish. So it is invalid. --123snake45 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kazakh is correct, if it's written in Latin. The Cyrillic spelling is . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sending the Kazakh Roman spelling as well, бағдарлама is attestable, "bağdarlama" is not. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This gets only one hit on Google Books and none on Scholar or Issuu. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are Roomaji spellings of Japanese words on Wiktionary. And this is QazAqparat spelling of a Kazakh word. --88.251.214.190 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And Latin script was formerly used natively, and this is AFAICT the expected Latin script version of бағдарлама. Fair enough, I'll leave it like an Arabic-script Afrikaans or Cyrillic Romanian entry. - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ostensibly Turkish citations
These were listed on the talk page as Turkish citations, but in the past there has been considerable debate over whether the citations offered by the user were actually Turkish or another Turkic language. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1997, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, Türk dünyası tarih dergisi - 121-132. sayılar:
 * Narodnaya Svoboda Partisi (Halk Hürriyet Partisi) bağdarlaması/programı tanıtılmıştı.
 * 2014, soc.culture.turkish:
 * .exe .dll gibi dosyalarda düzenleme yapmak için bağdarlama
 * Melih Gökçek bir sınalgı arnasında katıldığı naklen yayınlanan bir bağdarlamada
 * Those are invalid. Groups already are you... And books aren't enough. --123snake45 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Requests_for_deletion/Non-English. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–July 2019
The Kazakh version was deleted by User:Vtgnoq7238rmqco. We need to go through the process. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I attempt to delete it because the word does not comply with the latest standard of latinisation in Kazakhstan. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 moved from Talk:bağdarlama 


 * Hi, I'm not too keen to have all possible Roman spellings for Kazakh but this probably requires a proper WT:RFDN discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I attempt to delete it because it does not comply with the latest standard latinisation.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * : We normally provide entries for ALL ATTESTED romanisations (dated, obsolete, even non-standard). The entry could move to bag'darlama, the future Kazakh spelling but it's not attested yet. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * : Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR will require changes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Then the entry should be baǵdarlama because diacritics rather than apostrophes are used in the latest version.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Or you could just put all one one spelling as “normalized”, ignoring the minor differences. What has to be attested are the lexemes themselves; then even unattested romanizations can be soft-redirected like Pinyin transcriptions aren’t real entries. In an environment where there are freely convertible scripts one even quotes texts that are written in one script in a different script. So it has always been done in Yugoslavia. People made dictionaries in Cyrillic quoting Latin-written texts as though they always were Cyrillic. Somebody says something in Croatian and Serbian newspapers quote it in Cyrillic if they are else written in Cyrillic. wrote things in Cyrillic and it is republished in Latin. There is no fault in it, and nobody relies on whether it has been republished in such a form. The scripts are just representations of the same livelihood that is the topic. Not like Syriac and Hebrew-square-script Aramaic living separate lives. These alphabets are all by one community. The problem you have is that the whole orthographies do not span much more than a year. Otherwise if an orthography is widely accepted it would be laudable to convert all words in it schematically. It is a dire waste to attest the alphabet forms. Attest words and don’t split your precious attention for that, like the number of attestations required for a word needed to be multiplied by the number of alphabets. If you like literalism, the CFI speak of “terms” and “words” to be attested, not the way of writing them down. What do you do with words only attested in audio? Kazakh rappers release CDs then you quote in which alphabets? In all established ones. It all proves that the spellings don’t need to have been around. The words have to exist, easy rule. There it is good that you have alphabets and not Chinese script where there must be encoded signs around for words which isn’t always the case for dialectal words. If you delete a term here, it might be because the whole alphabet does not span enough to justify additions covered by the mentioned reasonings. Fay Freak (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Too much waffling again, too confuse everyone. Kazakh is allowed to have entries in three scripts, according Module:languages/data2, which can treated as a current language policy: "Cyrl", "Latn", "kk-Arab". Inclusion of "Latn" justifies bağdarlama as a full entry, not a redirect. If [[bağdarlama]] is attestable as a Kazakh word, we need to keep it. Neither bag'darlama nor baǵdarlama are attestable yet, despite the government regulations and currently ongoing transliteration policy changes (in Kazakhstan or Wiktionary). I suggest to just delete, to save time in WT:RFVN and we can update Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR to match the latest development. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that if a word is attested in Cyrillic, like, then the Latin forms should be added automatically. “bağdarlama attestable as a Kazakh word” is a wrong concept.  is only a Latin script representation of a Kazakh word. Only the Kazakh word must be attested, not its representational form. It would rather save time not to care whether a term is attested in a certain alphabet. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wiktionary, and the rules are mostly set up from an English perspective. English doesn't have major alternate scripts or spelling reformations. It does have quite a bit of spelling variation, though. That, as well as the convenience thereof, is why things are the way they are.
 * Write a discussion on the Beer Parlor and try and take a large picture view; don't argue the matter here on each entry in RfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The rules are either set up for other languages too or there isn’t any rule for other languages or a rule which excludes unattested spellings. But this is not the case, the rules are clear in this: Spellings are normalized, words only known from audio-records are entered, even for English. Also it is commonly accepted that not all forms of an inflected word need to be attested for its paradigm to be given and all forms created, only the paradigm itself needs to be certain. You would need to write a discussion in the Beer Parlour. I only render the current version of the rules that you both misinterpret. It’s always been like that, you just did not know it until I have told you. I have had the large picture view, no need to assume that I don’t have it but you. But why do you care to apply different rules? It is an inane question whether all forms are attested, for a lexicon only the lexemes matter. I emphasize that I care little about this specific word, the rules need to be interpreted correctly though in the future by you all. Fay Freak (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The rules are clear, but a user with 3,000 edits over ten years and an administrator with a quarter million edits don't understand them. The rules are what the users of Wiktionary defined, and if the literal meaning of the rules disagree with our group understanding, the rules will change. Spellings aren't normalized. I know of no word entered from audio, and I would object to entering words in well-attested languages from audio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All words. If this is a word that has seen sufficient use, then it should be kept. I do not believe in forcing users to figure what the current spelling might be or ignoring what's actually being written in exchanged for proclaimed orthographies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have deleted bağdarlama. Despite Module:languages/data2, we don't have a policy for keeping unattested forms and transliterations of words are not words. We only have a couple of exceptions based on votes. Yes, it's better to discuss the specific Kazakh language policy separately in WT:BP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who has forced? It is an additional orthography. You don’t know here wholly what’s actually being written. On the one hand internet use supposedly does not count, on the other hand you only look on the internet to find out if it is in use. But what’s actually being written does not wholly matter. People also hear words and then perhaps look them up in the Latin alphabet. Why are people who know about languages pretending that the written forms are the words? It is like confusing letters and phonemes. Fay Freak (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 70% of your phrases have no meaning. Please try rephrasing or ask someone to help translate into proper English. No-one's forced, no-one's pretending, no-one knows what's written, nothing matters. I'm just following the rules and policies. The entry may have been deleted prematurely but we need a solid ground to keep it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They all have meaning. You just refuse to interpret with the necessary complexity. Yes you follow the rules, but wrongly. The existence of the word, which is not doubted, is a solid ground to keep its Latin spelling. Fay Freak (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course we have a policy of keeping unattested forms. The reasoning is outlined supra. It is not specific to Kazakh. Because the forms are not the words themselves. The only question is if the alphabet itself has had sufficient use to justify “mirroring”. Fay Freak (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If bağdarlama is unattested for Kazakh and if Kazakh has no policy of automatically including certain regularly formed romanizations even when unattested as romanizations, bağdarlama could have been deleted via RFV, and RFD would not be the proper process. However, I am not sure I want to push the process matter here since it is already confusing as it is. As for the nomination rationale "the word does not comply with the latest standard of latinisation", that has no bearing on WT:CFI, and there is no RFD-relevant rationale provided for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2019–April 2020
I doubt that this word exists in Turkish. It would supposedly be a verbal noun of the verb *bağdarlamak, a denominal verb for the noun bağdar, which is the simple present of (“to intertwine”) but can be used as a nominal participle, meaning “someone or something that habitually intertwines”. However, I do not think this can be attested in the given or any other sense in standard Turkish. It is not listed on the TDK website. --Lambiam 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, there are citations at Citations:bağdarlama; is there anything wrong with them? (There could be: in the past citations offered up for this kind of word have been Azeri, barely comprehensible Turkish, not actually durably archived, etc. We really need more Turkish editors who aren't grinding axes in one direction or the other.) - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I had overlooked these citations. There is a small group of people seeking to purge Turkish from not-true-Turkish words like, a word that stems from the foreign Greek language and thus should be abhorrent to true-blood Turks. They come up with weird loans from other Turkic languages like from , which no Turk outside this group understands. So apparently bağdarlama (from regional ) is their chosen replacement for . You can ask one hundred literate Turks for the meaning of bağdarlama, and almost certainly not a single one will have a clue.  --Lambiam 05:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear, I am of the opinion that this is purist cruft that does not deserve inclusion. --Lambiam 05:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * : LOL, another Turkish group seeks to make all Turkic languages to write in Roman letters. You can see that work on the Turkish, Kazakh and Wiktionary projects. All their Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar and Uyghur terms are written in Latin, ignoring the standard and common spelling, well in advance of any future orthography reforms. They also chose the wrong lemma forms for Tatar verbs, which matches better the Turkish way. They have bulk-converted all Cyrillic-based Kazakh into Latin. Now we know that future standard Kazakh Latin spellings (romanisation) keep changing - bağdarlama ⇒ bag'darlama ⇒ baǵdarlama. The agenda of this group is clear but it's a huge disservice to users who can't find the correct attested and widely used Kazakh words in the right spelling. The Kazakh romanisation bağdarlama of the current Kazakh word is also part of that effort. I have deleted bağdarlama recently. I had to clean many unattested Tatar words in the past through RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Three of the citations are from printed publications and seem to be valid. --95.15.235.10 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on the above discussion I would suggest copying the label and usage note sınalgı uses, but it does seem to meet CFI. We do have rare neologisms in other languages, too, even English. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the citations given for, only one-and-a-half support the sense “television”. The last one contains so many made-up words, not found in any dictionary, that it is not possible to make out what it is trying to say. It is as if the confluction of snopivity is flurbing our sensiness to the trather or beyond, if you get what I mean. The others do not make too much sense either. What is a television buffalo? (Not the domesticated water buffalo you also find in Turkey, but an Indian .) It is interesting that this citation returns in the citations for bağdarlama, showing that this belongs to a . --Lambiam 20:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on your analysis, I think we can conclude that the citations are bad and the term (Turkish) should be deleted as not cited/verified. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RFV-deleted &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 15:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)