Talk:nɤ35

Entry does not make sense
This entry does not make sense. What is ɤ and why is a Chinese entry not using Chinese characters? 204.11.189.94 15:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are scores of dialectal words with unknown hanzi spellings. This entry was named using IPA; i.e. . —suzukaze (t・c) 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense, especially the pronunciation which uses the symbol ˧˥ (which has no Wiktionary entry) rather than "35" (sanshiwu). 173.88.241.33 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * —suzukaze (t・c) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2016–July 2018
This is Sichuanese romanisation, as used in dictionaries, what should be done? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This particular entry is not Sichuanese; it's Wuhanese. I don't think this one is the most extreme of cases; since the cited article used 勒 for this, so there is hanzi used. It is possible that the locals actually write it with some hanzi, albeit not documented in the literature. If it were the most extreme of cases, I think we could allow romanization entries for varieties of Chinese covered by, and IPA entries for varieties not covered by the template. BTW, we probably need some policy on including topolects not covered by the pronunciation modules. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No progress on this discussion. I don't want to act as a destroyer of Wuhan dialect terms but what should we do? The term is obviously unattestable, only used in special dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If Wuhan dialect is considered to be part of Chinese, then it would need three cites with usages, and then it might fail RFV. If Wuhan dialect would be treated like a separate language just like it's done with German dialects here (cp. Category:Alemannic German lemmas, Category:Bavarian lemmas, Category:Luxembourgish lemmas, Category:Central Franconian lemmas, Category:Rhine Franconian lemmas), then it could be different. -84.161.13.81 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , do you have any input on what should be done here? (Prisencolin created the entry.) - -sche (discuss) 00:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm more in favour of deleting this. I don't think it is likely to pass verification. Wyang (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed, then. - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)