Open main menu

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

Contents

WT:ATTESTEdit

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)

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

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

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

Japanese quotesEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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

Headings for Japanese termsEdit

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)

Japanese requested entriesEdit

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)

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)

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)

@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)
Return to the user page of "Cnilep".