Talk:Mahavyutpatti: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Just an editorial question here, do we really routinely need to put the phonetics on every page? I can image there is a good use for that for words like bodhicitta (sem-kye) or so, but what ordinary person would need to know ''jedrak tu tokpar jepa''? For me it just makes the page look more messy. Your opinions please --[[User:Hankop|Hankop]] ([[User talk:Hankop|talk]]) 14:06, 6 April 2018 (CEST) | Just an editorial question here, do we really routinely need to put the phonetics on every page? I can image there is a good use for that for words like bodhicitta (sem-kye) or so, but what ordinary person would need to know ''jedrak tu tokpar jepa''? For me it just makes the page look more messy. Your opinions please --[[User:Hankop|Hankop]] ([[User talk:Hankop|talk]]) 14:06, 6 April 2018 (CEST) | ||
:No, not on pages such as this. You are right. --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 14:47, 6 April 2018 (CEST) | :No, not on pages such as this. You are right. --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 14:47, 6 April 2018 (CEST) | ||
It would be good to have consistency across all pages instead of arbitrary rules. [[User:Kent|Kent]] ([[User talk:Kent|talk]]) 19:26, 6 April 2018 (CEST) | |||
The other point is that you never know if a page inspires someone to learn Tibetan by looking at the phonetics and the letters. [[User:Kent|Kent]] ([[User talk:Kent|talk]]) 19:27, 6 April 2018 (CEST) | |||
I also think it would be good to be consistent with all pages. After all, what is indicated in the Editorial guidelines is Skt. Tibetan, phonetics, Wylie, and then Chinese - so any changes to this need to be added to the Guidelines. As a matter of interest, I find it makes 'the page look more messy' when Chinese is added as well - it seems a bit over the top.... Ts. | |||
What we could do is to move the Sanskrit/Tibetan/Chinese definitions to a right-most template box. In case of an image it's below the image, otherwise it's top right. I've seen similar boxes on Wikipedia, for example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā. If this is of interest I could prototype something out. Wish there was a mailing list or Slack channel for more informal discussion about the site (I could fix a Slack channel within minutes if interest.) [[User:Kent|Kent]] ([[User talk:Kent|talk]]) 22:03, 7 April 2018 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:03, 7 April 2018
Just an editorial question here, do we really routinely need to put the phonetics on every page? I can image there is a good use for that for words like bodhicitta (sem-kye) or so, but what ordinary person would need to know jedrak tu tokpar jepa? For me it just makes the page look more messy. Your opinions please --Hankop (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2018 (CEST)
It would be good to have consistency across all pages instead of arbitrary rules. Kent (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2018 (CEST)
The other point is that you never know if a page inspires someone to learn Tibetan by looking at the phonetics and the letters. Kent (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2018 (CEST)
I also think it would be good to be consistent with all pages. After all, what is indicated in the Editorial guidelines is Skt. Tibetan, phonetics, Wylie, and then Chinese - so any changes to this need to be added to the Guidelines. As a matter of interest, I find it makes 'the page look more messy' when Chinese is added as well - it seems a bit over the top.... Ts.
What we could do is to move the Sanskrit/Tibetan/Chinese definitions to a right-most template box. In case of an image it's below the image, otherwise it's top right. I've seen similar boxes on Wikipedia, for example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā. If this is of interest I could prototype something out. Wish there was a mailing list or Slack channel for more informal discussion about the site (I could fix a Slack channel within minutes if interest.) Kent (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2018 (CEST)