Module talk:zh/data/ltc-pron/崗

Can this page be moved/deleted to prevent future editors from mistakenly adding {zh-pron|mc=y} to ?
 * The content of this page is same as Module:zh/data/ltc-pron/岡 KevinUp (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the readings can be assigned to Pronunciation 1 or Pronunciation 3 of . The old and middle Chinese readings were there in a previous edit but has since been removed. Please advise on the matter thank you. KevinUp (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After referring to Moedict.tw and 通用規范漢字字典, seems like the pronunciation gāng is still valid and used in and . I also added more compounds under the pronunciation gǎng based on Moedict.tw (兩岸萌典)  KevinUp (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've deleted the module page. These two characters are a bit of a mess... 岡 (gang1) is recommended over 崗 (gang1), yet 花崗石 and 花崗岩 exist in the dictionaries. I don't think Pronunciations 1 and 3 should be split though- maybe Pronunciation 1 should be expanded to include a usage note to cover the content in Pronunciation 3. Any suggestions? Wyang (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why gàng shouldn't be split. It looks fine to me. What I don't really understand is where gǎng came from. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Pronunciations 1 and 2 of Etymology 2 it should be. Etymology 1 and Etymology 2's Pronunciations 1 and 2 are actually the same etymology. Wyang (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I figured. All the dictionaries I checked have the same problem of saying that 崗 (gāng) is a variant form of 岡, but also include 花崗石/花崗岩 as the main form. They don't seem to mention 花崗石/花崗岩 at 崗 though. We can probably do something like this for pronunciation 2:


 * < insert some usage note on 花崗石/花崗岩 anomaly >
 * < insert some usage note on 花崗石/花崗岩 anomaly >
 * < insert some usage note on 花崗石/花崗岩 anomaly >
 * < insert some usage note on 花崗石/花崗岩 anomaly >
 * < insert some usage note on 花崗石/花崗岩 anomaly >


 * — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this format. This is what I had in mind too. Wyang (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made the change. Does it look good to you? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks much better. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)