Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries

Pinyin entriesEdit

  • Voting on applying this change to Wiktionary:About Sinitic languages. That implies two changes:
    • That a pinyin entry, using the tone-marking diacritics, be allowed whenever we have an entry for a traditional-characters or simplified-characters spelling.
    • That a pinyin entry have only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to a traditional-characters or simplified-characters entry; see [[yánlì]] for an example.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —RuakhTALK 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Discussion:
      Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Mandarin pinyin entries — problems and proposal
      Older Beer-parlour discussions, and subsequent discussions on various users' talk-pages. Too many to list them all, really. If you're aware of a specific discussion that you would like to see listed here, please feel to add it.
      Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries


  1.   Support Tempodivalse [talk] 00:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  2.   Support. bd2412 T 15:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  3.   Support Neskayagawonisgv? 00:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  4.   SupportCodeCat 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  5.   Support JamesjiaoTC 04:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC) By the way, the Romanization heading will need to be included as a standard heading, so it doesn't end up in rfc.
  6.   Support --Anatoli 04:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  7.   Support --Daniel 04:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  8.   Support ---> Tooironic 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose Dan Polansky 09:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I don't see why Pinyin should be treated differently from Japanese Romaji, for which definitions are customarily included in Wiktionary, as in abunai and hanrei. I understand that this leads to having the content triplicated, as in the triple of abunai (romaji), 危ない (kanji), and あぶない (hiragana), but that seems to be an ecceptable cost for the convenience of the user of the dictionary. A guideline for formatting romaji: Wiktionary:About Japanese#Romaji entries. --Dan Polansky 09:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    I see no contradiction here. The plan is to treat hanyu pinyin similarly to romaji (e.g. Yoshihiko) and kana (e.g. よしひこ) (where multiple kanji words exist). All definitions will go into hanzi entries and pinyin will list all matching pinyin (both traditional and simplified). The information in pinyin entry will be limited, this is a bad example: Hànzì, this example looks OK: píngguǒ (I have just removed all info that belongs to the hanzi entry) --Anatoli 00:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    In the examples you quoted, there is not much additional info and the declension is in the kanji entry, not in kanji and hiragana, which is good. A major difference between Japanese and Mandarin is that, there is no equivalent of hiragana or katakana, a valid writing script for Japanese. In Japanese あぶない and 危ない may be considered alternatives (but not abunai), in Mandarin 危險 and 危险 are the proper Mandarin forms and "wéixiǎn" is only romanisation. Traditional and simplified entries are kept in synch and doing the same for pinyin is tripling the effort and pinyin (even with tone marks) may have many different hanzi spellings. --Anatoli 01:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with Anatoli. Pinyin is a pronunciation scheme, in fact. Even in Japanese, on occasions, it is necessary to provide the Kanji to avoid confusion/ambiguity with identically pronounced words. JamesjiaoTC 04:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    The voted proposal forbids entering definitions into Pinyin entries, also by giving yánlì as an example entry, an entry that in this revision had definitions much like romaji abunai. Romaji Yoshihiko, given by Anatoli above as an example, is far from as instructive as abunai for Yoshihiko's being a proper name, and even Yoshihiko has "A male given name", which would be gone if modeled on yánlì. Thus, I still maintain that the proposal of this vote is to treat pinyin different from romaji, by (a) forbidding definitions, and (b) forbidding standard part-of-speech headings such as "noun" and "verb", replacing them with "romanization".
    On "píngguǒ" being allegedly okay: This revision of "píngguǒ" contains "苹果: apple (fruit)"; you (Anatoli) say of "píngguǒ" that it is okay, and yet it is formatted different from yánlì, which has no definition. So again, by supporting this vote, you are supporting that definitions be forbidden from pinyin entries, which is not what has happened in píngguǒ yet. --Dan Polansky 07:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    Re: [[píngguǒ]]: Dan Polansky is correct. If this vote passes, then that entry will be modified to lose its ===Pronunciation=== section; its ===Noun=== header will be changed to ===Romanization===; and its “apple (fruit)” gloss will be removed. The entry will also be removed from Category:Mandarin nouns, and added to Category:Mandarin pinyin.
    Re: romaji: I don't know if the current handling of romaji has ever been voted on. This vote is not necessarily a vote to treat pinyin differently from romaji; it's a vote to treat pinyin a certain way, and that's it. If we ever bring the handling of romaji to a vote, I think it's likely that we would decide to treat it the same way as pinyin.
    RuakhTALK 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    I see the point in adding parts of speech, (optional) pronunciation and MINIMUM definitions. I was going to do it yesterday on yánlì but was busy. I'll do it when I have a chance. We need to see what people will say who already voiced their agreement and if a change is needed for the vote itself. I have the same opinion about romaji, Ruakh. --Anatoli 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think it is a good idea to edit "yánlì" while the vote is running: all the voters have voted in reference to the current revision of "yánlì" without definitions. The vote is fairly clear that it forbids definitions anyway, by its "[...] a pinyin entry have only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to a traditional-characters or simplified-characters entry". If people are actually okay with allowing definitions in pinyin entries, that will need to be done in a subsequent vote; but I find this unlikely anyway, given several people were quite anti-definition as regards pinyin entries. --Dan Polansky 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    I am absolutely against parts of speech. That's one of the things that introduces inconsistencies. If I decide to edit a character entry with a new pos header, I don't want to have to remember to do that for the pinyin entry as well. As far as pinyin goes, it's create and forget. You shouldn't need to ever worry about it again once the pointer to the character entry has been created. JamesjiaoTC 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain Since creating this vote page, I've continued to receive feedback from Mandarin editors (some via e-mail), and while the feedback is mostly positive, a lot of the details they mention leave me wondering if this proposal will really solve the problems I intended it to solve. —RuakhTALK 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
What details? What concerns? Care to elaborate? On the talk page perhaps? Vaste 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This is now on the talkpage. JamesjiaoTC 04:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  1.   Close enough but I don't think I could support on technicalities. DAVilla 22:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Passes: 8-1-2. JamesjiaoTC 03:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)