Consider barring Vocab definition from accepting romaji readings?

Some vocab are so burned the definition is the word itself at a glance. Seeing as there’s some leniency given for 音読みvs訓読み for kanji. This seems like a more reasonable bar.

1 Like

Can you explain a bit more… I don’t really understand what you’re proposing.


Possibly words like 旅館 accepting “ryokan” as the definition. Maybe?

I don’t see how that aligns with “Consider barring Vocab definition from accepting romaji readings”

EDIT: I had originally read “accepting” as “accepted,” so it wasn’t making sense. Wait, okay… you mean not allowing “ryokan” as the meaning… but why… it’s a word. It might not be in every dictionary, but you can find it in English dictionaries. Requiring things like “vinegared rice with toppings” instead of “sushi” and whatnot seems extreme.


This is exactly what I’m asking. As Leebo mentioned, J>E loanwords could be excluded. It can be jarring to be rolling through reviews and hit a vocab that is too understood as a concept that the first thing that jumps to mind on seeing it is not the EN translation but the JP reading.

1 Like

Do you have examples of what you’re referring to? I can’t think of situations where the reading is accepted and it’s not an loanword. Though arguably some things like some Japanese grammar terms kind of have to use part of the readings by default.


That’s the point. Putting the reading for the vocab definition is considered wrong, even though it’s technically right. It should do the little shake like when kanji expects 音読みvs訓読み

Having it be wrong is “not accepting them.” Right? I’m confused.

Are you actually talking about you want it to shake for something like “kuruma” which is not a word in English? For the English meaning?

There’s only 3 possible states here, “right”, “wrong”, and “try again”. I’m saying that entering vocab readings into the definition should be a “try again” instead of a “wrong.”

Ah okay… now I understand.

I think WaniKani is going to disagree, since the reason that kanji shake for the other reading is because it was actually a right answer. Just not the one they want to make sure you say at one least time before you move on.

It’s hard to argue that kuruma is a right answer as an English meaning, though I understand the frustration. Adding synonyms yourself or using the override script (to your own discretion) seem like the solutions WaniKani would support.


That sounds like something a userscript could accomplish. Alternatively, if you’re sure you’ve internalized the translation, why not add the romaji representation as a synonym?

Manually adding every time sounds tedious. Why manual when we can automate? I was trying to avoid having to do more userscript work…


How many words like that are there on WK really? Besides your 2 examples, I can’t think of anything else.

1 Like

It sounds like it’s every word that isn’t a loanword. So like gakkou for 学校 instead of school would shake instead of being wrong.


Oh, I understand what they mean now.

i’d not be opposed to an option to disable tests on definition completely.


I’d be inclined to agree if it said “English Meaning,” but it just says “Vocabulary Meaning.” English is not mentioned anywhere.

I snipped out the relevant part.

We don’t need the prompt to be physically longer in the interface, but yes, WK created it expecting you to answer with English.


Aha, never been to the FAQs. I still stand by this consistency change since entering definitions in hiragana/kanji already get a “try again.” So why not romaji?

For that, it doesn’t check what you wrote. It’s just “hey did you realize you didn’t turn off your IME?”

I mean, you can make your case to them in email. Maybe they’ll change their mind this time.