Template talk:ja-spellings

Turn this into a morphology template?
As you know, I've always wanted to remodel the Japanese entry layout after the Chinese one, in order to solve the two problems which makes the Wiktionary-default entry layout unsuitable for Japanese: The solution I see is to use a soft-redirect system similar to Chinese entries: the lemma entry uses to link to non-lemma spellings, and non-lemma spellings use  to link to the lemma form, with these two templates modeled after  and.
 * A Japanese entry usually have more than one spelling, and therefore must appear on multiple entries;
 * Homographs are common, especially when ancient words are included.

Thus, Japanese entries are expected to have the following structure: {|style="width:100%"
 * width=50% |
 * entry with one etymology

Japanese

 * width=50% |
 * entry with multiple etymologies (e.g. homographs)

Etymology 3
...
 * }

where each &lt;lexeme&gt; is either a lemma entry or a non-lemma entry, signified whether it begins with or  respectively.

I created this template as a substitute of what was to be  (whose name was already taken). It had the basic feature to list all the spellings of an entry as well as to link to its non-lemma forms. Unfortunately (1) I was not good at web design and it looked ugly, and (2) the problem of where to place s remained. However, it fell short of the features of which it was modeled after: to show the internal structure of the term. For example, the Chinese entry had 22 to show it was a compound of  +, but the similar Japanese entry  has no such information, so the word structure must be shown in the etymology section.

Therefore I'd like to propose adding morphology information to this template:

(The resulting template is meant to be put on the lemma entry. Information about individual kanji is still to be handled by, which can be either centralized or listed on the individual non-lemma entries.)

What do you think about such an approach? 草草頓首

--Dine2016 (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m not against using it, but isn’t it enough to explain word formation in the etymology section? I think there aren’t so many cases where word boundaries are different. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. For compounds, word formation is obvious in most cases. If you explain it in the etymology section, you probably need to type something like . On the other hand, you could just have  and the template will fill the rest automatically. Of course, there are many problems and difficulties with such an approach, especially when concerning 和語. --Dine2016 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Although this proposal is withdrawn, I think it is a good idea to show information such as +, perhaps as an extension under . There is too much information if I were to click on each kanji: . By the way, this proposal works best for Sino-Japanese compounds that are written without okurigana. KevinUp (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Accent reference carried from kana entry
, please take a look at, is this normal? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fixed; thanks for reporting the problem. (It was a problem in Module:ja-parse, which only removed references in the form, not  .) --Dine2016 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

kyūjitai

 * Is kyūjitai under within the scope of this template? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. I considered kyūjitai (and other orthographical variations such as vs ) to be specific to spellings rather than words, so I left them out when making this template, leaving them for  for handle.

// to be put on whatever is chosen as the main entry // to be put on 広がる // to be put on 拡がる
 * I'm not sure if this is the best approach, though. What's your thought? --Dine2016 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot that my original plan was to make them generated automatically (except for ambiguous cases like and ). --Dine2016 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had thought that such variations might be within the scope (being mere alternative spellings), but including them in your concept of ja-kanjitab also makes sense. It would be more concise, as well. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I put off kyūjitai because there are other issues to be solved (such as how to display the kyūjitai if it's unified with the shinjitai in Unicode, e.g. ). --Dine2016 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ah, my favorite part of unicode~ they did such a great job with han unification. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 09:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Um…, a few Hongkongese are unhappy about it: . I guess it has something to do with the lack of an official standard of kyūjitai. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (is sarcasm _(：3 」∠ )_ —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 17:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC))

Which kyūjitai standard do you prefer - JIS X 0208 / JIS X 0213 or Unicode? If the latter, we might as well use pictures for unified characters such as 漢. Also, do you happen to be aware of any shin-to-kyū conversion table which follows one of the listed standards? --Dine2016 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure (´・ω・｀) Perhaps we should follow JIS use of codepoints, to align with Japanese computing, but the shape of the characters is also important &hellip; I like how the Chinese Wikipedia page for 旧字体 uses CJK compatibility characters, and there is also the possibility of using Unicode variation selectors. wikisource:ja:ヘルプ:異体字 might be worth looking at. As for lists, what about jaglyphwiki:Group:常用漢字の旧字体 or ? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I compiled the following shinjitai to kyūjitai conversion list:
 * No. 1 to No. 362 are from Jōyō kanji (2010).
 * No. 363 to No. 380 are from Jinmeiyō kanji (2015) ( 212 kanji that already appear in Jōyō kanji (2010) are omitted ).
 * No. 381 to No. 398 are from Hyōgai kanji (2000) ( 4 kanji already listed in Jōyō kanji or Jinmeiyō kanji are omitted ).
 * Codepoints of compatibility ideographs have been bolded. Also, note that shinjitai  corresponds to three different kyūjitai. For Jōyō kanji, all codepoints are obtained by converting PDF files into text files. KevinUp (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Though I would like to add 欠（けつ＝缺、けん＝欠）・芸（げい＝藝、うん＝芸）・缶（かん＝罐、ふ＝缶） to the one-shin-to-multiple-kyū list. (Well, there are also cases like 虫（ちゅう＝蟲、き＝虫）・糸（し＝絲、べき＝糸）, in terms that reference the original glyphs such as and .)

By the way, very curious why 篭-籠 isn't listed _(:зゝ∠)_ --Dine2016 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * is still the official form in Jōyō kanji (2010) and no shinjitai is listed for it. Japan has strict rules regarding character simplification and only shinjitai listed in official documents are considered official. Apparently, is still considered an extended shinjitai character. KevinUp (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I noticed that the radical is written as three strokes for Jōyō kanji characters but reverts to its original form as four strokes  for non Jōyō kanji characters such as Jinmeiyō kanji. KevinUp (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Out of curiosity, which PDF files were specifically used? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) Jōyō kanji (2010) (2) Jinmeiyō kanji (2015)  (3) Hyōgai kanji (2000)  - I obtained the codepoints manually for glyphs that are not part of Jōyō kanji. Also, the simplified forms in hyōgai kanji are known as  (variant kanji that can be used in place of ).


 * Anyway, these are the official approved shinjitai. Hopefully we could have it all automated. I think we can consider shinjitai not found in the list above as (extended or unofficial shinjitai). KevinUp (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

should 𥳑 be listed as a kyujitai of 簡? This character isn't even supported on my Android phone (which uses Source Han Sans :) Dine2016 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know orz —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

romaji
Should we add romaji information to this template? Then we may drop spelling information from headings. This is an example layout:       --115.27.198.88 21:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for bringing up this issue. Unlike the kana spellings, the romaji is dependent on the POS. For example, 本 (ほん) is romanized as “hon” as a noun (“book”), but “-hon” as a counter. 紫 (むらさき) is “murasaki” as a noun, but “Murasaki” as a proper noun. So I think it might be advantageous to let the romaji remain in the POS headers. On the other hand, I recognize that doing so would mean repeating the same information in every POS header, which can be tedious and error-prone. Which is why I proposed a “unified Japanese” entry layout similar to that of Chinese. Such an entry layout puts the romaji in the pronunciation template, because the romaji is closer to actual pronunciation than to modern kana spelling (gendai kanazukai). Finally, if we still want to put the romaji in the ja-spellings box, it is better to give the romaji a separate row, below kana and kanji. By doing so there will be abundant space to add both Hepburn and Kunrei-shiki romanizations. I personally don't like adding anything to the right of any kana or kanji spelling listed in the ja-spellings box, because it would make the kana and kanji spellings no longer centered in the box and vertically aligned. Thanks. --Dine2016 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)