Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations

Rationale

To be supplied by supporters. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Creation note

I created this vote based on a plea from Benwing2. A further input was provided by WikiTiki. Please provide feedback to the phrasing of the vote.

Also, @Wyang, please provide a rationale in the section Rationale above if you support the proposal made by the vote.

Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not what I proposed. My proposal is "to keep transliteration and transcription utilities modules separate in Module:languages/data2 and similar modules, for languages possessing two contrastive sets of romanisation schemes" (Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/August#Wheel_War-_Action_Taken). Also, I stress that minimal attempt has been made to argue for the stance that "the harms outweigh the benefits if we keep the transliteration and transcription modules separate for these languages" prior to creation of the vote. A vote should not have been created with inadequate discussion. Wyang (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wyang, the problem is that it appears you are opposed to a vote, period. Multiple people have asked you to create a vote to obtain final consensus on whether to put your changes through, and you've repeatedly refused. It is normal in Wiktionary to propose votes in order resolve contentious issues, with discussion prior to the start of the vote in order to iron out the issues related to the phrasing/motivation of the vote.

BTW the issue of "Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations" is something you have definitely spoken in favor of, and it's what most of the arguing/discussion in Beer Parlour has concerned. If you are proposing something else, then "please provide feedback to the phrasing of the vote", as Dan asks. Also, it seems to me that your ultimate goal in "keep[in] transliteration and transcription utilities modules separate in Module:languages/data2" is exactly to implement different romanizations in different places, and if so that's what should be voted on. Since keeping the modules separate in data2 is by itself not a user-visible change, I have a hard time understanding why you would care about it by itself if your goal is not a user-visible change like enabling different romanizations in different places (corresponding to different template calls). Benwing2 (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Because I dislike disorder and misnaming, and behaviours which weigh convenience higher than logicality and consideration for the future. Votes should only be created by an uninvolved, unbiased third party after there has been sufficient point-to-point argumentation from both sides. Disinterest in using solid arguments to defend one's position, and avidity for creating votes to 'solve the issue', raise the suspicion of hijacking numbers (which really mean nothing at all compared to reasonable arguments) to stifle the other side. In the discussion, the viewpoint "the harms outweigh the benefits if we keep the transliteration and transcription modules separate for these languages" was argued for very poorly and there seems to be withdrawal from the discussion from people who argue for it. But now there is this vote. Wyang (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang: I feared that this might be different from what you want. Do you then agree that all locations should show the same single or multiple romanizations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In particular, do you agree that translations ({{t}}) and etymologies ({{m}}, etc.) should show the same single or multiple romanizations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Single or multiple romanisations is not the crux of the issue. The core issue is that the central modules should recognise that there is a potential and non-negligible need by languages with a transliteration-transcription distinction to have romanisations applied in an appropriate, purpose-oriented manner; I have cited many examples to show that differential purpose-directed romanisations have been, and are being used internally (e.g. {{ko-etym-native}}) and externally. Mixing up transliteration and transcription to make it convenient will result in unreasonable prevention of contribution by contributors of these languages in a manner that is most appropriate for these languages. Wyang (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang: Can you please answer my questions? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"I am in no position to singlehandedly advocate that language X should use romanisation Y for a certain purpose without meticulous discussion having taken place surrounding language X, which need to happen in separate language-specific discussions" (same discussion). So the answer is: no. I do not advocate that "all locations should show the same single or multiple romanizations", nor do I advocate that "translations and etymologies should show the same single or multiple romanizations". Wyang (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

But then you seem to support the proposal of the vote while Benwing2 seems to oppose it. And if that is so, then the proposal of the vote is a point of contention, one about reader-facing presentation of romanizations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The task is not about finding an issue that people disagree on; I'm sure one can find a million points of contention that any two people on Earth disagree on. It is about finding the crux of the issue. Wyang (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I and Ben seem to think that focus should be on reader-facing disagreements, if any. If you can find another relevant reader-facing disagreement, I am all ears. If not, we have one, and a relevant one too. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Results of non-crux of the issue do not resolve the contention. Wyang (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether what you consider to be the crux can be formulated as a statement about the reader-facing interface of the Wiktionary. From the formulation you have given that concerns Module:languages/data2, it is not obvious what the disagreement about the reader-facing interface is, if any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So is User:Wyang not interested in solving the issue? —CodeCat 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Is making fictitious provocations and withdrawing from the discussions while demonstrating apathy towards the topic all you can do? "In the discussion, the viewpoint 'the harms outweigh the benefits if we keep the transliteration and transcription modules separate for these languages' was argued for very poorly and there seems to be withdrawal from the discussion from people who argue for it." (from above) Wyang (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang: Please respond to Dan Polansky's comment. --WikiTiki89 12:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The comment of disagreement about reader-facing interface? There is none. I am surprised the issue has been grossly misconstrued as I am now asked to provide the 'disagreement about the reader-facing interface'. The whole point of contention was about how to build module infrastructure to support certain languages; not at all how romanisations should be displayed. From the start, the two revisions that editors edit-warred to maintain had no difference in the reader-facing interface. The contention is about philosophy of technical structuring - whether the infrastructure should be appropriately named and structured to reflect the needs of certain languages, and we have seen in the discussions there are many examples supporting the need to maintain a separate utility structure for transcription and transliteration modules for these languages on Wiktionary, from previous practices by editors of these languages here and practices by other translation dictionaries. Wyang (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You made the argument that changing the module structure would allow for a reader-facing change of how romanizations are displayed for some languages. If you cannot demonstrate that this reader-facing change is desirable, then there is no reason to change the module structure. --WikiTiki89 20:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Haven't I already (especially the later parts)? Wyang (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is express the arguments in this vote, so that people can vote on whether they agree that that should be done. --WikiTiki89 21:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have already expressed the numerous arguments in the discussion. The opponents need to express their arguments in the discussion, instead of mindlessly saying “I don't like it”. As I said above, not providing any arguments and jumping straight to a vote raises the suspicion of hijacking numbers (which really mean nothing at all compared to reasonable arguments) to stifle the rival. Why do the harms outweigh the benefits if we keep the transliteration and transcription modules separate for these languages? Is it only the thought that this way of organising utilities for these languages appears unfamiliar (to people that do not edit these languages)? Wyang (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Still, you need to help word this vote so that if it passes it will satisfy what you want to accomplish. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It has already been implemented for these languages ({{ko-etym-native}}, for instance). I was citing this to show that there is a strong need to have the various utilities kept adequately named and maintained, in cases where they are contrastive. Voting on this topic is unnecessary; it aims to decide on something which has already been decided on by involved editors, and furthermore this is not the core issue of the contention recently. Wyang (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is what Wikitiki89 and Dan are asking. Tell us what is the core issue so that the vote can be worded accordingly. —CodeCat 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have already responded to that. Wyang (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wyang told us what the core issue is but not in reader-visible terms, namely "to keep transliteration and transcription utilities modules separate ..."--see above. It seemed to me the thing decided were better stated in reader-visible terms. But maybe not; I am not sure. I created this vote based on a request and I do not say the vote wording is the best one possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I have no knowlege of asian languages I agree with @Wyang in that if there are fundamently different ways to romanize some languages, which seems to be the case, then the module structure should be disigned accordingly. Of course this will ultimatly result in differnt romanizations shown to the readers, but given the complicated module structure we should not force the contributors of each of such language to reinvent the wheel, if they decide to actually show such different romanizations. Different romanization module structure per language will completely mess up the modules, which is not something that we want to happen. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The question that has to be answered first, though, is what actual change results from separating transliteration from romanization. If all of our entries end up looking exactly the same regardless, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in splitting them, other than for the sake of being pedantic. The change has to be useful or an improvement in some way, not be done just for the sake of it. Being terminologically correct is not enough. Consider also, that transliteration is a subset of romanization, so we could always just start calling them romanization modules if the name is such an issue. —CodeCat 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it be helpful for the decision making process to create a list of pros and cons (with simple bullets) for both CodeCat's and Wyang's solution? --Panda10 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What's my solution? —CodeCat 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought you had one. If not a solution, then some kind of direction. Sorry if I misunderstood. I am certainly not an expert here, but I am really trying to understand the situation. Please ignore my comment. --Panda10 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)