uikipedi'as:veltu'i tadji lo nu fanva lo cmene
ni'o ni'o selti'i
binxo| ni'o li'a no veltu'i tadji be lo nu fanva lo cmene la lojban cu zasti i se ki'u bo mi stidi lo nu ro cmene be se pa'u lo ckupau cmene cu se fanva se pi'o zo la'o
i mu'a lo'e cmene be pa'u lo la'orle'u cu co'e
i mu'a lo'e cmene be pa'u lo nalyla'ole'u cu co'e
i pe'i sai ta'i zo'e bi'u nai lo nu lo ckupau cu se muvgau cu jdika lo ka ce'u cafne i je bo lo ckupau selci'a cu ralju cuntu i je bo ba za ku da tertu'i fo lo bi'u tadji be lo nu fanva lo cmene i e'o ko te pinka |
It has become clear that there is no consensus on how to handle proper names in Lojban. Therefore, I propose that we use {la'o} for all proper names in article titles. For names using Roman characters:
For names using non-Roman characters:
I believe that this system will quell the frequent page moves & keep the focus on content until consensus can be built on names. Comments are encouraged. |
i mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
ni'oni'o pamoi pinka
binxo|
ni'o pe'i lo do se sarji cu ba lanke rinka loza'i pluja je barda fa lo nunfanva be lo cmene .i e'u ma'a pilno le se tadji be ledu'u lerfu sance fanva poi la mulno jbobau cu skicu ku'o goi zo lersnafanva .i li'a lenu pilno le di'u tadji cu ba rinka lo zmadu cmalu cmene ni'o mu'a lo cmene noi do cusku ku'o me di'e
ni'o ba lakne nitcu lezu'o ciska lo krinu bele selcuxna cmene le casnu kibypapri vi ro casnu kibypapri .i eivu'e ma'a mo'u tugni fo lonu fanva lo cmene le jbobau pusu'olonu muvdu lo ckupau .i |
I think what you propose will probably result in long and complex cmene translations. I would suggest that we use the transliteration method described in the Complete Lojban Language. Using this method will surely result in shorter names. For example, the names you mentioned:
It will probably be needed to write the reason for a chosen cmene in the discussion page in every discussion page. We should agree about the traduction of names to lojban before we make any further article movements |
.i mu'o mi'e Tadre'as 04:43, 4 la pamast. 2009 (UTC)
- I have avoided making transliterations for sometime now because there is no consensus. I would in principle agree to a policy of he-who-writes choses the name for the article, and moving only if there is a consensus of a different name, but the community consensus is to use the la'o convention until a consensus is created. Therefore I no longer write cmevla articles, unless a consensus has been reached on that name, because I find the la'o convention is jarring, and will ultimately result in a move anyway. An example from above regarding consensus: .uakr. I would pronounce as .ualker. The second vowel is pronounced in my dialect of English (which is not far from that of his home state, as is the first consonant. This example is one where there was a move war at one time as well. If you would like to help develop a consensus, several proposed cmevla, and where they are used in the wikipedia are listed under "Tasks" on the "bende ckupau" link from the "ralju ckupau" page, organized by language. Stifynsemons 05:27, 4 la pamast. 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem isn't about reaching a consensus about what name an article should have but rather about how should the name be formed. I think the most convenient transliteration would be that of the original pronunciation. So ".ualker" would probably be the most convinient name. Of course move wars are never acceptable, but such faults don't justificate the use of a rather impractical convention such as "la'e". If the lojban wikipedia hopefuly grows it will become more and more difficult to reach consensus through the pages you just mentioned. --Tadre'as 06:17, 4 la pamast. 2009 (UTC)
- The name and the form are the same thing in this discussion, in large measure. I don't like the la'o form, not for article names. I have used it quite a bit in article bodies and I agree that it is a pain -- creating links that way is unwieldy. I would rather see an attempt at lojbanizing the name, and then a reasoned discussion on the casnu page if there is dissent, rather than starting off with a name that is both unwieldy and unlikely to be the long-term name. Ironically, inappropriate moves happened anyway, because some evidently didn't read this discussion anyway. I think that native English speakers, despite the variety of dialects can reasonably choose good lojbanizations for English names 90% of the time the first time, and I'm sure this is true of speakers of other languages as well. If one follows the IPA pronounciation of other names, one can achieve reasonable pronounciations of non-native language names as well. I don't create pages with la'o in them, and only 15 have been created ever (about 2%, though some of these are some of the best articles written); of these only some were created with the proper form -- others were moved to this form, or they are just redirect pages. A lack of name content articles is a severe hindrance to producing a coherent encyclopedia (how can we link to much in history from the date and year pages otherwise?). What disturbs me is that discussions for consensus are not happening, and the previous proposal has been on the table for about 20 months.
- I suggest that we use la'o in articles bodies where no attempt has been made to translate the name, and that if one takes the trouble to write an article on the name, one should also take the trouble to figure out what it should be, using IPA codes or native language experience as a guideline. If you are not sure, you can use the la'o convention if you still want to right the article, or if it is a name from an obscure language, take a guess. Someone needs to make a first attempt. If you disagree with someone else's choice, put a note in the casnu section, and a note on the author's user discussion page, otherwise it will be lost in the shuffle. I would also suggest putting a template marking the page as having questionable lojbanization (to be developed). Then wait for feedback. I do not plan on acting on this proposal before the two year anniversary of the original proposal, as I have enough to keep me busy for a while. Feel free to comment. Stifynsemons 05:39, 26 la pamast. 2009 (UTC)