Talk:潮汕儂

Clarification
Hey, I'm not sure what you mean by not all varieties use "潮汕儂". Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * should only be used if all the varieties at the destination entry use the variant. In this case, 潮汕儂 is not fully equivalent to 潮汕人 since 潮汕儂 is only a Min Nan variant (and not used in Mandarin or Cantonese). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But I did that with several entries, including . Wouldn't that result in two entries having the same pronunciation (when they're the same word in essence?). If that's the case, maybe it would be better to put all the Min pronunciations in the 儂 entry and remove it from the 人 entry. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with having more than one entry with pronunciations. It's also clearer to show that the form is only used in certain varieties since we can label it on the entry directly. We already show that it's an alternative form using the template. The issue with using  is that it incorrectly categorizes the entry into CAT:Mandarin lemmas, CAT:Cantonese lemmas, etc. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, I didn't know that. For me though, just my opinion but, I think having more than one entry with the same pronunciations isn't ideal because an update on one would not necessarily reflect in the other, resulting in one being more "outdated". For example, one entry now has the pronunciation of more dialects while the entry is left unupdated, so it's easy to be left with that kind of discrepancy. At least that's what makes me think it's not ideal. But then again, I get that you don't want "潮汕儂" to be mapped as a Mandarin or Cantonese lemma when it isn't. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your concern, but being outdated (which usually means there's just less information) is better than being wrong. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about examples like (Hokkien variant of 凊彩, but I don't think 請裁 is used in Teochew?), or all the other Hokkien entries with variant ways to write them, but those variants don't apply to all the pronunciations found in the entry? We shouldn't use ? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, it would be better to not use in any case where the pronunciations and/or definitions would not be exactly identical (under one etymology section). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about, for example, just splitting the 中國人 into two etymologies? A separate one for the Coastal Min one. Then, we can have 中國儂 with the template. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)