Talk:Б-г
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Benwing2
@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89 How is this pronounced? Benwing2 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- [box]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- As a written variant, it doesn't have its own separate pronunciation. However the speaker pronounces Бог (Bog) will be the way they pronounce Б-г (B-g). In other words, we should not include a pronunciation section here because it is an alternative form entry. --WikiTiki89 15:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- My script actually skips all entries that say 'alternative form of' and 'alternative spelling of', but this one doesn't. On the other hand, there's also a check for nonsyllabic words, which will trigger in this case. Benwing2 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your script should follow our practices, we shouldn't amend our practices to follow your script. Also, there's a bug in the declension table; it's adding an accent mark to the vocative. --WikiTiki89 15:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, the script isn't a mindreader. It can't figure out whether to add things or not based on some nebulous, non-automatable criteria. The best I can do is hardcode certain pages to skip. Benwing2 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is this a script that you're planning to keep re-running to maintain the pages? In that case it really needs to be smarter about things like this and not go re-adding things that people reverted. I'm not accusing you, but just trying to prevent a bad situation. I've had problems with a bot that kept re-adding incorrect audio pronunciations to an entry, just because the audio file existed in commons; and I don't want your bot to become like that. In short, if your bot can't do the right thing, then don't run it. If this is a one-off bot run, then it's not as big a deal, since we can just fix everything up once. --WikiTiki89 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not planning on rerunning it unless there's some specific reason to do so, like a bunch of new entries that get added without pronunciations. If/when this happens, we can figure out how to prevent it from re-adding pronunciations on removed pages. It would probably skip this page now in any case since (as I mentioned above) it now has a check for nonsyllabic words, although that won't work on г-жа. The bot is fairly smart about when not to add pronunciations; e.g. it checks for
{{alternative form of}},{{alternative spelling of}}, and{{ru-pre-reform}}. It also issues warnings when it finds certain words like "abbrevation" anywhere in the text, and I check them and hardcode any pages that need not to be readded, if necessary. Benwing2 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not planning on rerunning it unless there's some specific reason to do so, like a bunch of new entries that get added without pronunciations. If/when this happens, we can figure out how to prevent it from re-adding pronunciations on removed pages. It would probably skip this page now in any case since (as I mentioned above) it now has a check for nonsyllabic words, although that won't work on г-жа. The bot is fairly smart about when not to add pronunciations; e.g. it checks for
- Is this a script that you're planning to keep re-running to maintain the pages? In that case it really needs to be smarter about things like this and not go re-adding things that people reverted. I'm not accusing you, but just trying to prevent a bad situation. I've had problems with a bot that kept re-adding incorrect audio pronunciations to an entry, just because the audio file existed in commons; and I don't want your bot to become like that. In short, if your bot can't do the right thing, then don't run it. If this is a one-off bot run, then it's not as big a deal, since we can just fix everything up once. --WikiTiki89 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, the script isn't a mindreader. It can't figure out whether to add things or not based on some nebulous, non-automatable criteria. The best I can do is hardcode certain pages to skip. Benwing2 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your script should follow our practices, we shouldn't amend our practices to follow your script. Also, there's a bug in the declension table; it's adding an accent mark to the vocative. --WikiTiki89 15:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- My script actually skips all entries that say 'alternative form of' and 'alternative spelling of', but this one doesn't. On the other hand, there's also a check for nonsyllabic words, which will trigger in this case. Benwing2 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- As a written variant, it doesn't have its own separate pronunciation. However the speaker pronounces Бог (Bog) will be the way they pronounce Б-г (B-g). In other words, we should not include a pronunciation section here because it is an alternative form entry. --WikiTiki89 15:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)