Talk:Huang-ch'i

RFV discussion: December 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Huang-ch'i

Both maps in the entry are from the same source, which also turns up on BGC. The only other potentially valid hit I see is a gazeteer, but it may be a mention. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not cited. @Kiwima, it's really important to read the page of the book you're taking a quote from so you understand the context. One of your quotes was clearly referring to the plant, and another was simply a romanisation of the Chinese phrase "yellow banner" (and a mention to boot). I have left one in, but I'm not even sure that one is correct; perhaps @Geographyinitiative could weigh in on it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Excuse me for being mistaken. I put a lot of effort into making sure every challenged word on this page has at least someone who is trying to find citations. I did read the pages, but I guess I didn't have the Chinese background to understand nuances that you do. For example, on the one that you said clearly referred to the plant, I read differently, assuming each bullet point referred to a port. On the "Yellow banner" one, I had no idea that this could mean "Yellow banner", it read to me like a place name. Please, when setting someone straight, try to use a less condescending tone. Kiwima (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kiwima, Metaknowledge From what I know, this is last Huang-ch'i example is almost certainly not the same Huang-ch'i that I'm talking about on the page. (I say that because I don't think the Qin/Chin state of the year 482 BC was making bronze vessels that would be found in coastal Fujian.) I will look at those examples Kiwima added and try to split them off into separate etymologies. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

So wait a second- aren't we done now? There are at least three citations for this word now, right? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The only citations I see for sense 1 is the AMC maps. You need three independent uses for each sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Thanks for your patience. I am reading WT:ATTEST and that material there, and it seems to say, literally

"A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic."

and further

"A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense."

The term has been attested. That's the point of attestation, right? Is there a part of the ATTEST requirement talking about attesting each sense of a word? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope. A term is a single sense. That's how Wiktionary works, and it is the basis of supporting terms in all attestation-based dictionaries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Thanks for your response. (No need for an immediate response after you see this- thanks for your time.) But if what you said is true, I can't understand Wiktionary policy.

I see the sentence "A term (call the word "term" "X") need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense." (X=definition) on that page (WT:ATTEST).

You just said "A term （"X") is a single sense （call the words "single sense" "Y")." (X=Y)

Now if I substitute in "Y", I think that sentence loses meaning- it would become 'A single sense ("Y") need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense.' (Y=definition).

What exactly does it mean to say that a "single sense" need not be limited to "a single word in the usual sense"?

Do you see the issue here? I may not understand this, but to say that a "single sense" may not be limited to the "usual sense" is confusing to me. Does a change need to be made on that page?

My goal here is to learn how to absolutely solidify beyond any question the Wade-Giles pages such that they will hold up in war and peace forever as long as the website exists. People will come in and play with the Wade-Giles derived words in the future and try to delete them because the words are despised by the Hanyu Pinyin-only people. I want to rest these words on an unshakable foundation that will last as long as this website is operational, but I can't do that if I can't understand the simplest sentence on WT:ATTEST. Can we write that sentence more correctly? Is it correct somehow that I am not seeing? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Except all attestation-based dictionaries do not care about every sense of a lexeme being attested in each spelling. They mention spellings differently and do not create clones of pages up to the part-of-speech level (or even the gloss level, duplicating all, as is suggested if some are “opposed to alternative form entries”). With the provision of having three quotes one deviated from this general rule of attestation-based dictionaries to counterpoise the dangers arising from the peculiar structure of a Wiki on the web inviting to create everything rare, including one-time spellings (which though has proven to be unsatisfying, as the case of s̲h̲āh shows). But because any derogation from or exception to a general rule is to be interpreted strictly, and because otherwise citation requirements would multiply for each sense on a main page which would goldplate this citation demand, we cannot derive from the mere entry layout practice that for alternative spelling pages entries are cloned the requirement that each such sense or even only part of speech needs three citations – in fact it would be reasonable to have pages without part of speech headings saying nothing but “alternative spelling of”, while the entry layout does not have the telos of being a regulator of the citation number – unless one has furnished prima facie evidence that there would be usage differences leading to particular ways of spelling because of the tendencies in the language’s grammar (as e.g. kickback and kick back have an expected POS distribution; inductionist reasonings that we can’t expect anything but must know all from usage are of course sophisms as well as impractical views to which the Wiktionary statutes have no leaning). This means the current citations of the same word in whatso sense or part of speech legitimize the whole page as cited. Fay Freak (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My skill at searching online has increased due to constant exercise over the past two to three months and I have found two additional cites for the 黃岐 etymology which I believe overturn this result. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)