Talk:Paharnic

Not "IPA": just "lang" and 'transl" templates

(As the hat expressly said, too: nothing to do with IPA[?]) Just trying to do the right thing, but now that I understand that you wish to take it as some kind affront, and that you own the article—having written it—I'll cease and desist. As you are a venerable old hand, who is not allowed to be gainsaid, I'll leave you to your own devices of ignoring MOS:LANG and WP:WNTRMT. I'm still at the stage of thinking these actions are requested in order to be helpful for building the encyclopedia and try my best to be helpful. Never mind, and best wishes to you, Dahn. I'll try to avoid "darkening your doorstep" from here. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: Here's the problem: this article is pretty good as is. It presumably could be improved. I don't see how the templates in question would improve it -- what is gained from using them? you signal to the reader that a portion of text which anyone able to read can see is in Romanian "is indeed in Romanian"? you help machine-learning with identifying what is and isn't in English?; the only part of the tag that made some sense would've been the IPA (though not being able to pronounce the words rendered in Romanian does not damage one's understanding of the text, and though the IPA for a very intuitive and phonetic alphabet such as the Romanian one would've been questionable as an initiative). So, to summarize: adding a redundant tag to a decent article, especially when you can't explain why it is needed (though the template points to a "discussion"), is a form of degradation, and it is the willy-nilly aspect of it that bothers me. It also bothers me because it is lazy: if you feel that the templates are absolutely needed, instead of adding the tag, you can actually add those templates yourself -- they do not actually require any specialized knowledge on your part (unlike, say, the IPA). Otherwise, what is left for me, the person who likes this article, dislikes degradation, and resents having it tag-bombed for reasons that don't even make sense, is to actually perform a silly and laborious task on your absolute whim. Note how arrogant that expectation is. Dahn (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Dahn: I was unaware it was all in Romanian. From looking at the article, it appears to have non-roman text, and, I thought, multiple languages. As that is not the case, I agree with you that the hatnote is not needed. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

As for "machine learning", or whatever ... pfft... I did not think that was the reason for adding {{lang}} templates. If that is so—and I bow to your superior knowledge on that—then, yes, it would indeed be a waste of time. For my part, I take the advice and guidance in the WP and MOS pages as suggesting formatting and styling needful for the encyclopedia, in good faith. And on that basis added the hatnote, being under the impression that an editor familiar with these languages would be better to add them. NOT because I am lazy: I myself, often respond to hatnote notifications placed on articles, undertaking the work requested in them and assumed others do, also. And very rarely add them. It was just bad luck for me that I did so on an article guarded by an ogre. I misunderstood the complexity of the task, in this case, but even so your characterisations are beyond disgustingly unjust.

Perhaps I should mention at this point what brought me to the article in the first place. There was a disambiguation link on the page listed in the WP:DAB project pages. (That DAB link was an easy fix Constantin Giurescu → Constantin Giurescu (historian), even for someone like me who was unfamiliar with the subject; yet it has been in the article since it was written. How's that for "lazy"; or perhaps "unconcerned" with the encyclopedia as a whole?) I like to track the correct links down for these, and usually make other concurrent edits while I'm there if I think I know what I am doing in the specific case. So, I'll track down sources for {{cn}} tags, copy edit where that's indicated in any hatnote, make spelling, grammar and format improvements, or whatever I feel I can helpfully do. More often than not, I end up removing tags and hatnotes, rather than adding them. For these reasons, the labels you apply to me on the flimsiest of evidence is quite astounding ... not, to mention arrogant, since we're apparently doubling-down on the whole flinging the crap around thing. No whim is involved: I followed WP guidance, that {{lang}} templates serves a useful function. I thought I was following WP policy. I certainly had no idea I would deserve such a hostile response, for what seemed a routine edit. And perhaps you know better: that WP policy and format pages recommend adding useless and labourious markup to pages for no good reason. If so, then perhaps we need to have the guidance pages changed, so that others do not innocently fall into the trap I have just plunged into?

By the way, I took your first edit summary to heart, and tried to do some more of the work myself, adding Romanian lang templates to a recurring word I felt confident about. You reverted this, together with the re-removal of the hatnote: whether intentionally or not, I don't know, but it seems to me that such action suggests no real intention to engage collaboratively with another. And if unnoticed, again, how's that for "lazy"?

Lastly, if you'd simply stated, straightforwardly, "all the foreign terms are Romanian, what's the problem?", or, you know, even approached me on my talk page, the way some WP users have been friendly and interested enough to do, the whole interaction could have been more pleasant and productive, and less wordy. You went with a snide remark based on misbegotten assumptions (now, that's lazy), followed up with a wholly arrogant (pot meet kettle) talk page response. Yes, this answer is probably an overreaction. I don't expect we'll ever need to interact again, but I'm not yet wise enough to do what I know I should and just ignore the ill-intentioned blow-back to my well-intended efforts. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's cut it short: why are they needed, and, if you do believe that they are needed for whatever reason, why don't you add them yourself, and expect me or someone else to do it for you?

Yes, a bit of the text is in multiple languages, all of which are already clearly specified before introducing the terms of art, and which the templates you campaign for will in no way differentiate better (not for the human reader, though they might do so for the machine reading this). You might be confused that some portions of the text are in Romanian Cyrillic, but, again, that is clearly specified. So let me insist: aside from this passing itself as a creeping rule, explain, using your words, why you feel this article needs to be improved by the templates? What layer of quality or legibility is added by them, so much that you need to tag-bomb this article? Dahn (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As we stand, the article is scripted like this (sampling the first sentence of the corpus):

''Paharnic'' is a Romanianized term, originating with the [[Church Slavonic in Romania|Church Slavonic]] variant, {{slavonic|Пєхарник}} (''Peharnik'')

As you will presumably note, the language of the non-English content is clealry specified in legible content, and, what is more, actually included in a template that allows the machine to identify the language (without linking the language again, per WP:OVERLINK). The only thing missing from what the tag red-flags is the IPA -- which would or wouldn't make the text better in this case (I suppose not, as anyone can read the transliteration "Peharnik"), but which you actually don't even ask for. So what are you asking, specifically, what is missing from the text, and what sort of information do we not already supply to a reader that can actually read a text through without getting tired? Dahn (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, b#$% off, your hostility and arrogant responses are not warranted. You even had to pointendly put a "dropping your workload on others" in the edit summary - which I have explained, but not to your satisfaction, obviously! I leave you to your smugness and rudeness. AukusRuckus (talk) AukusRuckus (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. (I do suggest at some point in this you actually ponder the underlying notion, namely that no human reader is assisted by this template-creeping. At least don't help the machines make you redundant, my good man.) Dahn (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And if all you're asking is that we circle every occurrence of a foreign term with the invisible template (invisible to the reader, not to whoever is opening the editing window), instead of tagging this article and saying we should all view this article as incomplete for not going through that utterly tedious process (which appeared as a creeping rule after this article was actually written,and which should not be regarded as actually required from editors who don't want to spend a lifetime on wikipedia), by all means, do it yourself. Dahn (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Purpose of lang templates

Hatnote does not refer to a discussion at all –per above: '(though the template points to a "discussion")'. Where did that come from? This is what it says:

This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{lang}}, {{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's multilingual support templates may also be used. See why.

[Includes a link to the rationale.]

what is gained from using them? Ask at that policy page, and while there, suggest that the policy is dropped, since "it adds nothing" AukusRuckus (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the underlying policy here, and how did you take the decision that this page goes against it? Dahn (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)