One half 3544

Hi there, I saw your recent anigh and was interested in how well you added it, though when I looked at your contributions I saw that you were less new than the absense of a welcome message on your talk page would suggest. So, to rectify the situation "Welcome to Wiktionary". As I am sure you have already seen, the entry format is codified in Entry layout explained and our Criteria for inclusion are strictly obeyed (or else…), both of which should be glanced through when you have a moment. The answers to most other queries can be found in the Community portal, though I am happy to answer any specific questions you leave on my talk page. I hope to see you around, Yours Conrad.Irwin 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --One half 3544 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is quite funny to get a welcome message after almost two years of contributing to the project, but thank you anyway =) --One half 3544 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw you're a long time contributor. I also saw you never got the welcome message, so decided to correct the injustice. By the way, you could use User talk:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js for adding Russian translations. It's easier, also it automatically adds the {{t}} template, which adds a link to Russian Wiktionary, and forces the {{Cyrl}} script template. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I try not to use various script helpers since manual editing improves my touch typing skills, but I'll learn about those templates, thanks. --One half 3544 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

animadversion

Please do not use "trans-see" except in cases of exact and total synonyms. The term animadversion is not entirely synonymous with "criticism", which has several meanings. The term animadversion carries only one of those meanings, and has other connotations that criticism does not always have. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing out. --One half 3544 10:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Транслитерация

Здравствуйте, пожалуйста не забывайте о WT:RU TR :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 07:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --One half 3544 (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more appropriate to put transliteration on the term page only (where all types of definitions should go) so that information is not duplicated? --One half 3544 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We do for translations as well and not just for Russian. Missing transliteration will eventually have to be filled. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Consider word маленький for example. Its page contains word definition, transcription, transliteration and everything else which is related to the word. It is not necessary to add transliteration to the translation section of small, since transliteration is just one click away from that page. Moreover, such addition is harmful because it duplicates information. What if mistake is found in transliteration? One would have to fix it in multiple places, which is tedious - so people won't do that.

So, adding anything else than just a link in translation section looks like bad idea to me. I suggest creating small stubs for translations and putting all the stuff (transliteration, transcription, audio pronunciation, etc.) there instead. --One half 3544 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with One half 3544. That's why I don't add transliteration and gender information to translation tables. Those would have been useful if Wiktionary was a one way English-Russian dictionary. --Vahag (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that you, Vahag, don't add transliteration but that's because you're lazy and you don't do it for Russian, but do it for Armenian. :) Please don't encourage bad practices. There is no policy saying that transliteration is not needed but most "about pages" prescribe it and explain how to do it. Why should we make users click several times? Consider yourself in the user's shoes and think how frustrating it is to see a translation into a language you don't know how to read. -Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

With this argument we could start adding transcriptions to translations tables. Oh, wait, some users may know nothing about IPA - we should start embedding .ogg files with pronunciation.

I don't think that wiktionary users are uneducated to the degree of inability to use hypertext link. --14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides, translations are often ahead of entries. Entries may not exist, even if they do, it's easier to read the translit. from the translations without clicking multiple time, especially on multi-part words. All languages in non-Roman scripts are transliterated, if it's not the policy, it's the way it is. The only reason why some translations miss transliteration is contributors don't know themselves how to transliterate or can't be bothered. I think transliteration is too important to be ignored. Mistakes do happen, that's why fix each other's mistakes and typos. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody says that transliterations are unimportant. But they should not be duplicated everywhere. Of course it is more convenient to see everything in translation table, but this usability issue could be solved by some clever scripting (fetching transcriptions/translations from entry page and displaying them in translation table). --One half 3544 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Who says it shouldn't be duplicated, which policy? As a new user, please follow the established practice. Changes to common practices are made collectively, after discussions or votes if necessary. Failure to follow the established practices causes other editors more work rather than adding value. We don't have a massive team of people like in Wikipedia to fix poor edits of beginners, so some users get blocked if they refuse to learn and do the right thing. Not a warning yet, just FYI. Thanks for understanding. You're welcome to edit but please do it properly - adding transliteration and gender info for Russian translations is not a big deal. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No policy against duplication, just common sense =)). Recent mini-poll at the Information desk shows that common sense is not so common, however =))) Also, I am not a new user. And an established practice is not necessary a good one. And, as Vahag has pointed, transliterations could be added/shown automatically with a script.

So you are threatening me with a ban for refusing to do harmful and automatable work. This is ridiculous. --One half 3544 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The automatable work is not in place and may never be, it won't give word stress, gender and cater for described exceptions. There is nothing harmful in adding transliteration, good dictionaries provide transliteration both ways, it is very useful and enables production of English-Russian dictionaries, as in User:Matthias_Buchmeier#English-Russian. And what duplications are you talking about, if you don't create entries for the red-linked translations? No, I'm not threatening, as I said but I have been looking after the translation into Russian for years on this project, I'm concerned about quality and I'm not very keen to fix people's edits who refuse to cooperate. I value my time. Normally, if people want to introduce new practices or changes, they discuss it with others, seek agreement or compromise. If a practice becomes controversial and some editors continue to insist on their way of doing things, they occasionally get blocked. It's no longer considered good faith. We are not Wikipedia and we don't have efficient methods to resolve conflicts. We can't stop casual contributors do substandard edits, especially in languages with low contents (other editors have to fix their edits later on) but Russian is not in bad need of more contributors, it has documentation on transliteration, so if you continue to persist, you're simply not welcome. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 22:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we are talking in circles. Let me do it one more time, however:

• Information in a database must not be duplicated. Duplication is wrong. No matter what kind of information it is - transcription, transliteration or anything else - it must be defined in a single place.
• If it is required to display transliteration in translation table, it should be fetched automatically from that single location. Either by server-side script (modifying translations tables automatically - ugly way) or by the user-side script (modifying only the displayed page - slower, but cleaner). Alternatively entries could be created automatically from translations (with automatic generation of transliteration) so that users could fix those auto-generated transliterations there.
• I'm not against addition of useful information, I'm against addition to the wrong place.
• Yes, I do not create entries for red-linked translations, because I think that translations are more important and my time is not infinite. However, I would have understood if you had asked me to create them and to add transliterations there.
• My edits are not substandard, they do not require fixing. Of course everything could be improved - by creating entries for red links, for example. But I hope you do not demand creation of a red-linked entry from every user who adds such wiki link into an article.
• I am not trying to introduce new practice. Current practice is wrong, but I'm not going to stop you or anyone else from duplicating transliterations all over the wiktionary.
• I have no more arguments, so if you really think my contributions are incorrect or have to be undone or in some other way violate policy, I suggest that you block this account - I could redistribute my time to other projects. Otherwise, please stop bothering me. --One half 3544 (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me chime in here about databases and Wiktionary.

I fully agree that, in a proper database configuration, data should not be duplicated.

However, Wiktionary is decidedly not a proper database configuration.

• Some of this is because of the technical constraints of the system -- rather than each entry being a proper table, with each entry portion being a separately defined attribute in that table, each entry is essentially just a big blob. There are some tricks for making that appear to be a bit more like a proper RDBMS, but those are tricks, and some of them are kinda hacky.
• Some of this appears to be because of community decisions about what to do and what not to do, or due to a lack of explicit decision out of inadequate consensus for what to do. A good case in point is how alternate UK vs. US spellings are handled -- have a look at colour and color for some wonderfully horrific database abuse. Technically, we could have all of that content in one location, and simply serve it up separately under the colour or color headwords, but instead we have that content duplicated -- clumsily, incompletely, and inconsistently.

Not just headwords and transliterations, but glosses and etymologies too could (and arguably should) be managed in one location (ostensibly on the relevant headword page) and transcluded to other pages. I floated an idea about transcluding etymologies for building up etymology hierarchies; if a Japanese term, say, was borrowed from English, which came from Spanish, which came from Nahuatl, such as ココア, it is technically possible to have a base etym on the Nahuatl page, transclude that and add to it on the Spanish page, transclude that and add to it on the English page, and transclude that and add to it on the Japanese page.

However -- again, "however" -- such solutions are technically complex, prone to breakage, and fragile. Any solution for keeping data all in one place must be 1) discoverable, so even newbies can quickly figure out how and what to do; 2) robust, so newbie editors cannot break things out of well-intentioned ignorance; 3) simple, so newbies can still use it, and so older hands are not tempted to short-cut the process simply because it's cumbersome.

The current setup of the Wiktionary software does not make this possible. So we get duplication of information as the only effective way around the limitations of the software.

For a closer RDBMS-style approach to a wiki, where information in an entry is marked in ways that allow for better machine retrievability, but still built on a MediaWiki back-end, you might have a look at w:Semantic MediaWiki.

Current practice, with information duplicated, is "wrong" from the points of view of 1) clean data management and 2) consistency. However, current practice has also evolved in response to the realities of 1) software limitations and 2) a mixed community with numerous new and casual users, and long-standing ideals of low barriers to entry. I, for one, would certainly welcome a move towards a more streamlined database approach, where data is indeed kept in one place. Such a move must, however, start with discussion, rather than any unilateral attempt at pushing things through. I think this thread here represents the start of such a discussion, and I would heartily support moving this to either WT:Beer parlor or WT:Grease pit (I'm not sure which venue would be more appropriate), where these deep systemic issues can be brought before the wider community. I look forward to a greater understanding of the current operational constraints and use requirements, and to implementable suggestions for overcoming the many technical and management bugaboos that have produced the current less-than-optimal system. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, real life imposes certain constrains on the system, but it this concrete example I don't see a problem. And absence of an ideal architecture in current system is not an excuse for introduction of subsequent crutches. And yes, I fully agree that normalization problem should be discussed in a more suitable place. I have no objections against linking this thread there. I can help with bot programming when (if) decisions are made. --One half 3544 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a clever script automatically adding transliterations, but it is not working yet. --Vahag (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We have only a few people contributing to Russian translations and everybody has been using transliteration. Please do the same. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• As an addendum, transliterations into the Latin alphabet improve usability by improving searchability -- if someone is looking for a term and can figure out how to spell it in the Latin alphabet, then the Wiktionary Search tool can find it. If entries only ever use non-Latin scripts, then only people who can input those non-Latin scripts can find those terms. (I know a lot of our Indic entries are missing any romanization at all, even on the entry pages, which makes searching for terms a bit of a bugger for anyone who does not know how to input those Indic scripts. Likewise for a number of Georgian entries I've stumbled across.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Another discussion of this topic

Accidentally I've stumbled upon previous discussion - it is here --One half 3544 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

steven

Two or three years ago you provided translation tables and Russian translation tables for this word. The word is obsolete, archaic, or dialectical in all of its senses, though it was only labeled that way today. Only the citations would have been a clue at the time you made your contribution to the entry. For such words, we try to use {{trans-see}} to direct users - and contributors - to more current synonyms where sufficiently close ones exist. The logic is to try to prevent wasting contributor time on redundant translations and prevent misleading users about the suitability of the English word in contemporary English, including in Wiktionary definitions of non-English and English terms.

English has many, many current words that have rare, archaic, obsolete, and dialectal synonyms (not to mention those that are just uncommon) and Wiktionary has many current terms that lack translations into important languages (sometimes even lacking translation tables). We also have translations that are wrong. All of these are areas that require serious attention.

All of this is a long-winded way of explaining and apologizing in advance for any deletion of your contributions and of enlisting your help in the use of {{trans-see}}, though I noted #animadversion above, which suggests that it is easy to overuse it. Also, if you suspect that an English word is "rare", "obsolete", etc, but is not so marked, bring it up on the talk page at least if not at WT:Tea Room. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)