Template talk:ja-add

"strips L3"

@Suzukaze-c Replacing existing content with this template causes the following error even if you're autoconfirmed:

Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: strips L3

My old account was autopatrolled and did not trigger such an error. Any way out (aside from using JavaScript for such acceleration)?

By the way (also pinging @Eirikr):

1. I don't think Etymology headers are a panacea for separating different lexical items on the same entry. 加(くわ)うるに (kuwauru ni) and 加(くお)うるに (kuōru ni) should be separated by Pronunciation headers, instead of Etymology headers. This is why {{ja-see}} relaxed the entry-layout requirements on lemma entries (at the expense of fewer categories being copied).
2. Please take a look at the current 加うるに entry and notice how we're forced to repeat the POS header, the headword template and the definition for a pronunciation variant that results in a different kana spelling. It would be nice if we were able to restrict the pronunciation variant to the pronunciation section, like this:

==Japanese==
{{ja-forms|o1=加える}} // fetches the forms from pronunciation section

===Pronunciation===
{{ja-pron
|m=くわうる に,くおうる に
|acc=3[DJR]
|h=くはふる に
}}

===Conjunction===
{{ja-con}} // display no kana or romaji, just the page title "加うるに"

# [[besides]], [[furthermore]]

The idea to make headword templates display nothing except the page title comes from the Chinese entry layout and makes perfect sense for Japanese. Since we cover all stages of Japanese under the Japanese header, a kanji-only title such as 味 will stand for both modern あじ and classical あぢ, and we can make kana-containing titles like 味わう stand for both modern あじわう and classical あぢはふ (since other historical dictionaries like the OED also uses headwords in modern spelling to encompass all stages of the word). As a result, the romaji is technically undetermined. Similarly, the conjugational type is undetermined since godan ≠ yodan, ichidan ≠ nidan, etc., and since forms like あぢはふ can be both yodan and nidan. By moving the kana/romaji to the pronunciation section and the conjugational type to the Conjugation section, data duplication will be reduced. --Nyarukoseijin (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)