Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-10/Mixed script Mandarin entries

Initial notes

 * 1) I didn't specify that a mixed-script entry would be allowed only when attested, because that's already a requirement of all our entries.
 * 2) In my example entry, I suggest we put entries in Category:Mandarin terms written in multiple scripts. If we prefer to reserve that category for standard terms, we should create and use some other category for these (Category:Mandarin nonstandard terms written in multiple scripts?), first so we can find all of them easily, and second so we do not fill Special:UncategorizedPages, which should contain almost no entries.
 * 3) Should the vote be specific to Mandarin? I see no reason to allow mixed-script entries that couldn't have Mandarin sections to have Min Nan or Cantonese sections, so I said "Chinese", but we could change the wording so it only applies to Mandarin entries, if necessary.
 * 4) What should be affected? My wording includes all mixed script terms, not just proper nouns, terms containing proper nouns, or eponyms or toponyms. Is that a problem?
 * 5) Should we disallow (=ban) entries like Planck chángshù/Planck Chángshù, pinyin romanisations of mixed-script terms?
 * 6) Is my exception (item 3) good? I intend it to prevent the vote from banning terms like 卡拉OK that our Chinese editors say don't have all-hanzi forms and/or are standard in their mixed-script forms, and should be kept. I also intended it to work with my initial, more explicit wording of item 2 (which you can see in &lt;!--comments--&gt;) to prevent standard terms from being required by item 2 to be marked as nonstandard.
 * 7) Is the more explicit wording of item 2 better? I used the general wording "an explanation of the use of the term" because that means all terms which are nonstandard, proscribed, and unlikely to be understood must have usage notes explaining that they are nonstandard, proscribed, and unlikely to be understood (because that is the accurate description of their use) ... whilst entries like 卡拉OK have notes describing them as informal but not proscribed (or whatever description is accurate — in any case, without them being required to be marked as proscribed if that isn't accurate). - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, let's add to Category:Mandarin terms written in multiple scripts, I change my original request.
 * Yes, should be specific to Mandarin only. We have many Min Nan entries/translations in Roman or mixed. Some words don't have a hanzi version. The dialect is not very standardised. More or less similar situation with smaller dialects. Vernacular Cantonese uses letters o, d, etc, as semi-radical for characters missing in a standard set.
 * 1) "Should we disallow entries like Planck chángshù/Planck Chángshù" No, our pinyin entries match hanzi entries having parts of speech. They won't pass the attestability test and will create a maintenance mess. Pǔlǎngkè chángshù is for 普朗克常数 and can be allowed.
 * 2) Will need to think about the wording for exceptions. Generally it's abbreviations.
 * Yes, no definition and other categories. Also - simpl for simpl., trad for trad, no need to follow the standard Mandarin entry rules. Planck常数 has only a link to 普朗克常数, not to 普朗克常數.
 * 1) Good job, I wrote this in a hurry. Hopefully some other Mandarin speaking editors join. --Anatoli 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the changes and feedback, especially about Cantonese and the other dialects! - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (DIGRESSION) LOL, e.g. character "" (missing in older versions of Unicode) can be written as "o". Even if they are not missing, they may be difficult to type, e.g. so "" is typed as "o". --Anatoli 03:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, strange! - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dan's feedback
I see some issues with the vote. --Dan Polansky 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "[...] deemed standard if they are in durably-archived Chinese dictionaries." This is unacceptable to me. Other dictionaries should not be consulted to see what is and what is not standard; that is lexicographical prescriptivism. Wiktionary editors find what terms are actually used, and document the findings. Wiktionary does not serve to protect the purity of language. Moreover, in general, Wiktionary does not use other dictionaries as references, other than for etymologies.
 * Point 1 is modeled on the recently passed vote for pinyin, requiring the existence of an entry without Latin characters as a prerequisite for the mixed-script entry. I tend to disagree with this. A mixed-script term is not an analogue of romanization; it is a term that is attested in durably archived sources, and thus a rare synonym of its nonmixed-script variant.
 * Cosmetics: Point 1 contradicts fa per point 3: if there are any exceptions to point 1, point 1 must already advertise this. Thus I reject the following style of codification, no matter how common it is: "No mammal lays eggs. However, there are some exceptions, such as platypus." The first sentence is wrong. If there are some mammals that lay eggs, no sentence should say otherwise. The passage can read thus: "Almost no mammals lay eggs. Mammals that do lay egges include platypuses." For the case of sentences actually appearing in the proposal, the form would be "A is allowed only if B, or if an exception specified later is met". But even better is "A is allowed only if B or C". To break it down to several lines: "A is allowed only if one of the following two conditions is met: \n* B \n* C.


 * The rule "...be allowed only when we have an entry..." is meant to discourage creating "mixed language" - a more precise term (not "mixed script") entries (European word + Mandarin word) en masse before correct Mandarin names are created. Yes, the idea is the same as with pinyin vote and also caused by the same person. No need for a flood of "incorrect spellings" before correct spellings are there. It's much easier to write the original European name of a person in English than bother writing it in Chinese transliteration. It takes some effort and knowledge. In other words, the rule says what it should say about redirects - no redirects without an entry to redirect it to, as simple as that. It's not prescriptivism. If the word is not transliterated into hanzi, it's not Mandarin. All foreign names are either translated or transliterated in Mandarin. It's not a spoken dialect, it's a heavily standardised language, so full words in foreign script can't be considered part of Mandarin. We already compromised allowing this type of entries, even if no Chinese speaking editor accepted them as Mandarin terms.


 * Phrasing the description of "mixed script" (not "mixed language") entries like (X-guāng) that are created by Chinese themselves need to change, if you insist.  /  (BB-jī) - "pager" contain Roman letters but they are created by Chinese themselves. If you look at the current entries Category:Mandarin terms written in multiple scripts, most words with foreign scripts are abbreviations. Words like e-... (e-learning), i... (iPhone), β-... (β-particle) are examples where there is no way but to borrow this letters into Mandarin or use descriptive words. These letters are also transliterated the same way as English "alpha particle" (instead of α-particle) - "阿尔发粒子" "alpha + particle" ("阿尔发" + "粒子") but "alpha粒子" is an example of code-switching - two words in different languages. OK (colloquial) is a rare example of a full word used in Mandarin, others are just abbreviations identical to English - NBA, WTO, etc. I'm just trying to explain the difference between  "mixed script" terms that are already accepted here as valid Mandarin terms and other "mixed script" terms ("mixed language" terms) as per this proposal, which are more than just terms in two scripts. I'm not sure I sound convincing but I think we should not change the first rule. --Anatoli 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dan: Regarding the format: I am respectfully of a different opinion. AFAIK, it is not typical to describe an earlier point as contradicting a later point; instead, a later point is sometimes described as contradicting the earlier point: but not when, as in this case, the later points (2 and 3) do not "contradict" the earlier point (1), but rather (point 2) clarify and (point 3) create exception to it. This is a standard format for laws, rules, etc, especially when a single statement would be less clear, on account of length or complexity, than discrete points.
 * Regarding the use of other dictionaries: we consult other dictionaries to determine whether or not words are standard or or  or misspellings, as is necessary for a descriptive dictionary: if a word is regarded as nonstandard, we should describe that it is nonstandard; if a word is proscribed, we should describe that it is proscribed; if a word is not regarded as nonstandard, we should not describe it as nonstandard. That is what we will do in these cases. - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Banach 空间

 * @Dan Polansky: An example of cited mixed-sript Mandarin entry could be like this Banach空间 (This cited example is deleted by Anatoli, reason of deletion given "Oh you can talk? No, they will be deleted on sight in this format. That's a general consensus. --Anatoli 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)", please see here):


 * 1) Banach space
 * 2) * Title Banach 空间结构理論; Author 赵俊峰; Publisher 武汉大学出版社, 1991; ISBN 7307011395, 9787307011397
 * Banach 空间结构理論
 * Banach Kōngjiān Jiégòu Lǐlùn
 * Theory of Structure of Banach Space

2.27.73.173 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 123abc, you'll have to convince all of us but you won't. I explained the reasons on your today's talk page. As per the format it's a consensus we have reached. --Anatoli 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, 123abc - the block evader, mass created mixed language entries without prior agreement on this controversial issue will be deleted or nuked, like your pinyin entries failing to comply with the agreements. You don't wait for the consensus, you just push, why are you asking questions this time? Will you listen to the answers? Your previous supporters all turned away from you. You just can't work in a community. I'm just helping people who got a bit weary cleaning the mess you leave behind. Sorry for the digression. --Anatoli 13:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No one is saying this cannot be attested. We are here to decide on a format to follow, hence the vote. You are welcome to vote once the vote has started. Since this issue is in contention at the moment, you need to stop adding these terms. This is one of the reasons they are getting deleted. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mixed script Mandarin entries vote has started.
The vote is very sluggish, I wonder why. Is everybody on Straw Poll: each section of our CFI? --Anatoli 02:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)