#REDIRECTWikipedia:User talk:Cnilep
This page is a soft redirect.

WT:ATTEST

edit

You may find it useful to look this over before creating more entries that may end up deleted. For well attested languages like English and Japanese, dictionaries do not serve to attest to a word. Instead, at least three independent uses of the word in durably archived media (things that are physically published, or that turn up on Google Books or Usenet) must be found. In the case of a word like yamma, it is of course possible, but quite unlikely, that these criteria will be met. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

edit
WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

edit
WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Japanese quotes

edit

It seems like you're not using {{ja-usex}} and I was just wondering why. (Also, thanks for adding quotes :) ) —Suzukaze-c 00:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Am I not? My usual practice is to use {{ja-usex}} for simple, sort examples and {{quote-book}} or similar for longer examples from published works. See a recent example of both at ぺちゃんこ. If I do something else, it's probably because I'm not paying sufficient attention. Cnilep (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ah, you are right. I wasn't looking close enough, sorry.
I think it would be better to use {{ja-usex}} for both cases for the sake of consistency, although I get that the transliteration might make things long and unaesthetic. —Suzukaze-c 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Does ja-usex make categories easier/more appropriate? Maybe it would be good to use ja-usex for both, but precede the long ones with #* and use #: for the short ones? Cnilep (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
The categories Category:Japanese terms with usage examples and Category:Japanese terms with quotations exists, but {{ja-usex}} only sorts into the first category, and entries in the latter category use {{quote}} (for some reason or other).
#: / #* for usage examples / quotes is normal Wiktionary practice, isn't it? —Suzukaze-c 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

edit
WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Headings for Japanese terms

edit

Hello Chad --

I tweaked your edits over at 擦る. Note that we don't use any "Readings" header, and instead we break out different readings under separate "Etymology" headers. Otherwise, looks good, and thank you for expanding the entry! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Japanese requested entries

edit

Hi. When removing requests added in good faith, as you did here [1], please explain in the edit summary why you are removing them without fulfilling them. Equinox 19:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't remove them; I moved them from 'unsorted' to the appropriate kana-sorted sections. I guess I should use edit summaries to make that clear. Best, Cnilep (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

ガチャポン and ガシャポン

edit

I noticed your recent addition, and was curious about the etyms. It seems that the チャ variant was probably first, given the onomatopoeia ガチャ (gacha, the sound of something hard banging about). Then, reading through ja:w:ガシャポン, I was struck by this bit:

「ガシャポン」はバンダイの登録商標であり(日本国、商標登録第1756991号)同社が独占的に使用している。

Googling google:"ガシャポン" -バンダイ and google:"ガチャポン" -バンダイ does show that the シャ variant is still more common. However, given the trademark issue, I wonder if we shouldn't either 1) make ガチャポン the lemma, or 2) at least include a note somewhere about the trademark?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr I actually had started to put the lemma at ガチャポン, but then noticed that ガシャポン seems to be more common on the web. I didn't know about the trademark issue; that might have a serious impact on which form is used by other companies.
I thought about the etymology. I strongly suspect that the word comes from ガチャガチャ or simply ガチャ, but couldn't find any published sources to that effect that seemed reliable. I think I looked at something (Daijisen?) that specifically mentioned plastic rattling in relation to ガチャガチャ, but that didn't seem like quite enough to make a definite call on ガチャポン.
I also seem to remember (though, with little confidence) hearing ガチャポン in the 1990s, but my recollections and 100円 will get you a coffee at Family Mart.
All of which, I guess, is to say that I would have zero objection to moving the lemma, and would welcome additional information, including the trademark piece. Cnilep (talk)
Addendum before saving: A patent search (I used https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/ and searched for "1756991") suggests that Bandai's trademark is labeled "ガシャポン". But it looks like the record was amended in 2005. The original application was in 1982, and it's not clear to me from this record if the original application was ガシャポン or ガチャポン. Maybe the details need more looking into. Cnilep (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey

edit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

edit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

edit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

ガチ#Adverb

edit

Hello Chad,

I see that you created the ガチ entry. The adverb sense there includes a usex that shows the word used as an adjective: ガチでうまい parses out to "gachi and umai", as two separate qualities -- the (de) here is conjunctive.

Do you have any evidence for adverbial use? Presumably, we'd want examples of ガチ used without particles to modify a verb or other adjective.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hi. "Related terms" is for words where the etymology is related, like "government" and "gubernatorial". In the case of ULEZ at T-Charge, it's not related in that way, merely a similar topic. I have changed that to "see also". Equinox 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my mistake. Thank you! Cnilep (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

三つの密

edit

according to the Japanese Wikipedia and other sources, I think this is only pronounced as "mittsu no mitsu", not "mitsu no mitsu". --2409:894C:3C16:6A9:B8E4:B17A:4F2E:1AD9 03:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) : @Eirikr What do you think? --2409:894C:3C30:2E79:F786:BD8C:A137:FD8D 02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Meh. As ever, Wikipedia is not a good source. Poking around online, I find evidence for both the geminate and non-geminate readings.
Note that the above have not been further filtered, and include results that don't back up either conclusion. Even so, a glance through the pages of hits shows enough evidence to be suggestive for our purposes.
The full string with kanji + full string in only kana is an uncommon combination, but even there we find some evidence for the non-geminate variety.
There are also 37 hits for google:"三っつの密", where the gemination is explicitly spelled out.
Looking broadly at the results, I'd say the geminate reading is more common, but both are valid.
HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
AFAIK the geminate reading is considered standard, so it is not surprising to find it more commonly, but the non-geminate version is also used. Cnilep (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

|t=, |tr=

edit

Did you mean to use |t= (gloss) instead of |tr= (translit)? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You mean on 索道, right? Yes, I did mean translit. Thanks for the heads-up. Cnilep (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Slapgate/slapgate

edit

Damn I wish everybody was so quick on the cites as yourself. I gather you are an academic, which means (i) you are better at it but (ii) you have less time for it. blah blah blah Equinox 05:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It also means that I have access to a university library, which is a big help. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

edit

Appreciate your work on requested Japanese entries, etc. I guess we should say it sometimes. Equinox 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

edit

If you think links should be removed from quotations, this should be discussed at the Beer parlour, as it is standard, e.g., in many Words of the Day. Sometimes names of people need to be linked to Wikipedia for context. J3133 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

from Wiktionary:Quotations:
11. Generally, the quoted text itself should not contain links but they may be useful when quotes contain uncommon words or when the quoted text was originally linked. A 2010 discussion Links in the body of quoted text on the subject did not reach any conclusion about this.
I guess that we would have had differing views in that 2010 discussion. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note that Wiktionary:Quotations is a think tank, and that this specific point was added by Ghost of WikiPedant in 2010, and reverted twice by Ruakh, who later changed it. J3133 (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

ash-hole

edit

Don't cite Wordnik. All Wordnik does is agglomerate several freely licensed dictionaries, including Wiktionary, into one decrepit and hilariously outdated website. I saw that Wordnik was pulling a definition from the Century Dictionary, so I just cited that using {{R:Century 1914}}. Ioaxxere (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that there is not much to recommend Wordnik. I cited it in this case, though, because two of the quotations I included (Drew 1856 and Stockton 1898, if memory serves) I learned of on the Wordnik page. I stuck the R: there, rather awkwardly, so it wouldn't make the References section too messy. An inelegant solution, to be sure. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply