Talk:Mahavyutpatti: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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) | 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. | |||
Revision as of 13:48, 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.