User talk:Lunabunn

唯心聖教

The entry 唯心聖教 / 唯心圣教 (Wéixīn Shèngjiào) has a Sino-Korean term, which I found using Quiet Quentin.

(Also, the entry has yet to have an official Japanese term, if any, added.)

What do you think? -- Apisite (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite While the religion itself seems to have a very limited (read: nonexistent) presence in Korea, there nonetheless seems to be a decent number of attestations for its name in news articles and such. If you would like, I can create the respective hangeul entry as well as add Korean to 唯心聖教.

I also see some attestations in Japanese, probably with the reading ゆいしんせいきょう. Compare 唯心(ゆいしん) and 聖教(せいきょう). Lunabunn (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

On a tangential note, is there a reason why the link in the definition of 唯心聖教 / 唯心圣教 (Wéixīn Shèngjiào) is a WP link? I would think that Weixinism and/or The Holy Church of the Heart-Only deserve their own English entries. Lunabunn (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If anything, the term "Weixinism" could be defined as follows: "The theology taught in the Holy Church of the Heart-Only." There's also an entry for Weixinism at Wikiquote.

That said, you may go ahead with creating the entry in hangeul. --Apisite (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

유심성교 (yusimseonggyo) and 唯心聖敎 have been created. 唯心聖教 has been added. Lunabunn (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

太極門

What sense is the term 太極門 / 太极门, which is 태극문 in Korean, in addition to the sense of the Taiji-Men Qigong Academy (太極門氣功養生學會 / 太极门气功养生学会)? Apisite (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The aforementioned qigong academy is a menpai (門派 / 门派 (ménpài)). --Apisite (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that it is the name of a breed of orchid. In addition, I think the original sense as referring to the Taiji-Men 門派 / 门派 (ménpài) should also be restored; it is not a company name, and the RFD seems to have been misguided. Lunabunn (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And what about making the Korean entry 문파 (munpa)? --Apisite (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a bit of a copout to create that entry just with the "school; sect" meaning without the other meaning, which is one 流派 of a 宗家's 門中. I will look into it, as that is quite a difficult definition to write. Lunabunn (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

At least there's the Eldsay English community if you want ideas on making literal translations of the terms as provisional definitions. --Apisite (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, at least at Wikivoyage were three locations for learning the qigong of Taiji-Men added to three entries. --Apisite (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"the RFD seems to have been misguided." luv dat, stay beautiful Wiktionary --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I will put it in my backlog of entries to create if no one else comes along, although I would much appreciate if someone actually familiar with 門派 / 门派 (ménpài)s could do it instead :') Lunabunn (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi, can you briefly explain what's wrong with the entries you've nominated for speedy deletion? You didn't leave a rationale and there are several pages that link to them, but I suspect you have a good reason to nominate them. Ultimateria (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! As per a recent consensus (WT:AOKM), those pages should contain the main lemma and the current main lemma pages should be removed. Since one or the other has to be deleted, I thought it would be better that those pages I speedied (correct title but wrong contents) are deleted & the main forms moved in their place to preserve history. I am an extended mover, so I can take care of the moves once the deletion takes place. Hope that clears things up. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 02:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The links were deliberately left untouched because I didn't want to "fix" them, only to change them back after the move. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 02:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Got it, I've deleted those. Next time you can nominate them as {{d|technical deletion}}. Ultimateria (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Will do. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 02:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:okm-IPA

Recently @Theknightwho has changed Module:IPA so it rejects any input that contains anything but valid IPA characters. That means that the tone parameters required by this template are triggering module errors. Probably the best fix would be to have your module substitute valid IPA character sequences for the invalid ones fed to the template before sending them on to the IPA module. However you decide to deal with it, you need to do something: the template is not just useless in its current state, it's adding quite a bit of clutter to CAT:E. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz The source of the error is Theknightwho's latest edit ignoring data specifically added in Module:IPA/data/symbols for this to work, not any oversight on my end. Unless there is a broader consensus to refactor, changes to high-impact modules should not cause breakages for previously well-behaved code. I would fix or revert myself but alas I am not an admin 😛. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 06:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz @Lunabunn I've fixed this. The issue was down to the fact that the change moved the check for invalid sequences before the removal of all valid characters, because certain invalid sequences contain valid IPA characters (e.g. ə˞ (ə + U+02DE) should be replaced by ɚ (U+025A)). I've changed things so that per-language checks are done first, then invalid sequences, then finally all valid characters are removed. This leaves behind any characters where the validity is not known, and these are treated as warnings (i.e. they show up in preview mode and the page is tracked).

More generally, I've also made the checks more sophisticated, by changing the main check and the per-language checks into Lua patterns (which can be a series of patterns), rather than simply a list of valid characters (e.g. now it will only allow superscript characters between pairs of superscript brackets). I've also changed it so that whenever a valid sequence is removed, it's replaced by a space (rather than removed entirely), which avoids the possibility of accidentally creating an invalid sequence part-way through the process. Theknightwho (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That does sound much more robust than before. Can confirm {{okm-IPA}} is also now working again. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 17:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: there's one holdout at WT:Grease pit/2024/June. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)