Template talk:Efn native lang

Min romanisation

“

Hey @Ythlev:, I do like the recent edits you made which show Hokkien and Hakka romanizations in a note in the infobox. My intention is to tell the readers what the romanization system they are seeing is, just like we tell them that they are looking at 'Mandarin pinyin' (linguistic category following by romanization scheme name). I would say 'Tâi-lô' is the best name for it (just like 'pinyin' is derived from Mandarin pinyin), but I didn't want to push that, so I just wrote 'romanization'. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Could also be 'romanisation' or whatever- I'm just trying to let the reader know what kind of romanization scheme they are looking at. Is it POJ or Tai-lo? I thought you would like this edit. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

”

@Geographyinitiative:: You do realise POJ and Tai-lo are different systems right? Sure there can be two parameters, but then editors would need to know which one it is. Ythlev (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it would be a good idea because Hakka has tons of dialects and there are tons of indigenous languages. If they each had different fields for different romanisation schemes, there would be too many. Ythlev (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ythlev: What I'm trying to do is tell the reader what romanization they are looking at, just like you tell them they are looking at 'Mandarin pinyin'. I'm not asking for you to add Tongyong Pinyin and Wade-Giles and all the other romanization schemes to your note- one romanization for each linguistic variety would be good enough. If there is no 'official' romanization for Hakka, then just use the one the MOE is using for their dictionary of Hakka (or whatever seems most conventional). Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the problem is unlike Mandarin, for Min, usage between the two systems is split, so which do we choose? Ythlev (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ythlev: I guess the only thing to do is remove the word 'pinyin' after the word Mandarin. This way, all the linguistic forms can be shown with the romanisation appropriate to the page in question. For instance, there are still some places in Taiwan that are using Wade-Giles and Tongyong Pinyin forms in their English langauge official names, in the English names of their organizations, on their buildings and on their English translations of their road signs. We can't ignore that reality either. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is unnecessary because Pinyin is way more ubiquitous than other systems, so we can expect all inclusions to be Pinyin only. Ythlev (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the standard writing system for Mandarin is Chinese script, not Pinyin, so specifying it is Pinyin is clearer. For other languages on the other hand, the writing system is not universal. Ythlev (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan (ROC) is a more complex situation than "Pinyin is way more ubiquitous than other systems". You know that. Don't use your template as a bludgeon against history, minority usages, or helping readers understand non-Hanyu Pinyin forms that are being used at present. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let the readers understand the rough edges they are seeing. No need to dumb down Wikipedia. This is an attempt at 愚民 if your intent is to ignore Wade-Giles and Tongyong Pinyin and POJ where they are being used today, especially in the English language titles of pages. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are open-minded enough to see that we need to include the non-Mandarin romanizations (and you are doing a great job with that!!) then I would like to urge you to also see the value of helping English-speaking world have a grasp of where their English-language terminology is coming from for those buildings, districts, counties, persons etc that use one of the 'non-ubiquitous' romanization schemes. Let the people understanding what they are seeing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that 罷黜百家，獨尊儒術 is Han Dynasty policy, not Wikipedia policy- we shouldn't fall into a sort of "罷黜百種音譯，獨尊漢語拼音" policy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read up on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Ythlev (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: If the user is concerned about accuracy, I suggest not putting POJ and Tai-lo in the same parameter. Why would you do that in the first place?? Because it is not always known. Check out Taiwan High Speed Rail#Local connections. These ambiguous romanisations are everywhere. Is that acceptable to you? Are you also going to try to label them all? I certainly cannot. And I can ask you the same question. If you think there should be two parameters, why didn't you add them yourself instead of declaring the sole parameter as Tai-lo, which is incorrect? Ythlev (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth being brought up at ANI

It is worthwhile to bring up my reverts at ANI. The entire module needs to be reviewed by the community before becoming widespread due to the actions of one editor. Your module does not include Bopomofo which is in widespread use on the island (http://dict.concised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/jbdic/gsweb.cgi http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi), is exclusionary of alternate and minor romanization systems, etc and puts Hanyu Pinyin in a position of privilege over all other romanization systems in a way that you need to justify, not assert. The MoE has put forth the official romanization scheme for Taiwanese Hokkien/Min Nan/Minnan, just as the MoE has put forth Hanyu Pinyin as an official romanization scheme. Your template has good qualities, but it also seems like a dangerous simplification of the situation. I like the template, but it needs to be closely reviewed and actually accepted before the community, not asserted by one user. Thanks for your work and I look forward to any further discussion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lang-zh}} does not support Hakka and it is widespread. What do you say to that? Ythlev (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request to Module:Efn native lang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revert this module to this version. The module was made incorrect by a user and now protected due to that user edit-warring. Ythlev (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a module, more is required. It might be possible to revert an article back to its established state without other explanation, but a module has a purpose and it should be possible to explain why one version is correct while another is wrong. Is there an example of this module being used in an article where the result is wrong? How is it known that it is wrong? Has a wikiproject agreed that it is wrong? Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An example is Taipei Metro. There are different kinds of romanisation schemes for the Hokkien language. The current version says Tâi-lô, but in this article, it uses the Pe̍h-ōe-jī scheme. How is it known that it is wrong? Because earlier versions explicitly say they are, edited by someone who speaks the language. Ythlev (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as to the immediate edit request, as discussion is still occurring. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not wrap this template in Template:Dubious span

On a related note, Ythlev added a wrapper for {{Dubious span}} to this template, with an edit summary of "Most uses for Hokkien are POJ so it is wrong". I don't know what "POJ" means (wikilinks are helpful), but I have reverted that editor's change to this template, since objections to individual uses of a footnote template should be discussed and/or tagged individually, not registered by modifying the template itself. Instead of modifying this template, please discuss objections to uses of or the format of this template/module here, or in a venue where there are additional knowledgeable people who could help to resolve this apparent disagreement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that exactly? Since we don't know if any of the information from this template is correct, they are all dubious. How does it make sense to mass-tag all articles instead of the template? Ythlev (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template, as the documentation explains, is: "creates a explanatory footnote for a word in the native languages of a country". If the purpose of the template were to tag information as dubious, then the template would have a different name and different documentation.

If the information contained within an individual footnote is dubious, tag the information, not this template. This template should be content-neutral. If any single instance of this template contains valid information, putting a {{dubious span}} inside this template, to be applied to all transclusions, is invalid.

If you have a problem with the content or format of this template, discussing that content or format here is the correct course of action. If the template is too controversial to ever be used without introducing dubious content into Wikipedia articles, perhaps Wikipedia:Templates for discussion is the venue you are looking for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]