Talk:gakko

RFV discussion: February–July 2014
put a note in the two pages asking if we have "to include alternative transcriptions", and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|15px]] Personally, I must say that romanizing as gakko instead of  is a bit like spelling  as aple, or  as  -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether.  I don't think we have any business including "alternative transcriptions" as a matter of normal policy.


 * [[gakko]] is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: ; . As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the "alternative transcription" content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
 * [[gakkou]] isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved to WT:RFD. Neither entry was tagged with anyway. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–July 2014
"put a note in the two pages asking if we have 'to include alternative transcriptions', and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|15px]] Personally, I must say that romanizing as gakko instead of is a bit like spelling  as aple, or  as  -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether.  I don't think we have any business including 'alternative transcriptions' as a matter of normal policy.


 * gakko is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: ; . As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the 'alternative transcription' content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
 * gakkou isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)"


 * It's been four months. Done, striking.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just think, if Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations passes, we'll end up restoring just a wek from now. :b - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Where do you see any attesting quotations of "gakkou" in use to convey meaning? Enjoying setting up straw men much? "gakkou" was sent to RFV, no attesting quotations were provided for the form, so it was deleted, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * has loads of instances of the string gakkou. I argue they're not "uses" of a "word" to "convey meaning", and it seems no-one disagrees with my view, since no-one cited any of those citations when the term was at RFV. Nonetheless, those citations are identical in form to citations which the main proponent of allowing romanizations (BD) has argued are "words used to convey meaning", hence I presume that if the vote to allow romanizations passes, he'll support including . - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It bears noting that at least some of those hits are likely bogus, like the top title on this page of hits: The Phonology of Hungarian. :)
 * That aside, there have been occasional conversations among us JA editors about what to do with spellings that don't fit the modified Hepburn scheme in use here at EN WT. So far, the general consensus (at least, as I've understood it) has been to remove such entries.  The use of ou or uu instead of the macron versions ō and ū is very common online and even in some academia, in part due to the difficulties of inputting macrons using US keyboards.  (For those interested, this is sometimes called wāpuro rōmaji or “word-processor romanization”.)  Given that we already have a standard for romanized Japanese entries, and given that we already have romanizations for a high percentage of our JA entries (and even the JavaScript tools in place to accelerate their creation), I don't think BD's arguments in favor of including romanizations have much immediate bearing on Japanese -- we're already doing that.  :)
 * If folks wish to expand that discussion to include the issues of alternate spellings and what to do with those, I'm happy to engage in that conversation, and if such alternates are deemed entry-worthy, it would be very easy to (re)create the [[gakkou]] entry as a similar redirection.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)