User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 10

可
I added information on the 可 page about the use of 闊 when employed as a substitute for 可. I think it points to an interesting fact about 可, but the wording may need some polishing. I would appreciate your review and appraisal of the edit. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

⿱艹奄
Does such a character exist on Unicode? Because it is listed as a variant in the 新华字典 of 庵. If so, I would like a page created for it. Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See 菴.--Zcreator alt (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

湯湯 comparanda
I included the Min Nan as a comparative that suggests a connection to the Middle Chinese etymon for the Japanese term. LTC itself didn't seem like a likely connection, as the reading shown had no  at all. Granted, that was before. :)

One growing thought has been that the JA 湯湯, already a rare term, is an alternative form or conflation with 蕩蕩, rather than the other way around. Are these alternatives in ZH as well? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Min Nan thng-thng is vernacular, so it's not a good example to show connection to Middle Chinese. (In fact, I'm starting to doubt its existence, since more reliable sources have thong-thong instead.) The Japanese pronunciation might be a literal reading of the characters, probably due to the uncommonness of the reading or the ignorance thereof.
 * In Chinese, 蕩蕩 doesn't seem to be a variant of shāngshāng. It may have some connection to tàngtàng, since 湯 is equivalent to 蕩 ("to move; to shake") there, but the tàngtàng pronunciation is quite rare, and semantically it doesn't seem to match the Japanese definitions. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the etymon for Japanese is 蕩蕩. The semantics and pronunciation match pretty well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've reworked 湯湯 and added 蕩蕩 accordingly.  Much appreciated!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

JA alt forms header ordering
Heya, looking at, I feel moved to point out that Japanese alt forms are inherently subordinate to etym and PR. This becomes more obvious in multi-etym entries, like at or (less complicated). I can't find where this might have been initially discussed; the most recent case I can dig up is this one in January 2018, where a couple of us complained about a bot automatically moving alt forms in inappropriate ways. Wherever I've been aware of such discussions about the location of alt forms, I've never agreed with a placement at the top of the entry. It's just not appropriate for Japanese.

Would you be amenable to leaving JA alt forms after the etym and PR sections? It's confusing to editors, and I suspect also readers, for the section to be in different places in different entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * WT:EL only gives two options: before etymology and pronunciation or after definitions. If it should be subordinate to etymology/pronunciation, then it's probably best to go with the latter option. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I confess I don't agree with WT:ELE in this regard -- the "before the definitions" rationale is stated as, "headings in this group do not depend on the meaning of the word", which is true to an extent: a given etym / reading for a Japanese term might have umpteen definitions, all of which apply to that etym /reading. However, as I mentioned earlier, the "spellings" of a Japanese term (different kanji forms) are intrinsically tied to the etym / pronunciation, so putting alt forms before that is incorrect -- especially for multi-etym, multi-spelling JA terms.
 * Meanwhile, the "after the definitions" rationale is stated as, "These headings generally derive from knowing the meaning of the word", which is not the case.
 * In short, the order of headings in WT:ELE in its current state is inappropriate for JA entries. Every time this has come up for discussion and I've been aware of it, I've chimed in with the JA perspective, but my concerns have apparently fallen on deaf ears.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I generally do not like exceptions for particular languages unless there are exceptional reasons for this. From my limited knowledge, I can't see how the "after the definitions" method isn't good enough for this situation. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps alternative forms can be qualified to show which readings they apply if they are to be centralized before the etymology sections? (Personally I'd like to see the hiragana-as-entry approach for wago with all kanji spellings specified by something like, leaving "alternative forms" for variations of sound shape etc.) --Dine2016 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me dig up the latest thread about this -- I'm also interested in reworking our approach to wago, and as you note, that would nicely obviate this discussion about where to put alt forms for different kanji spellings with different etyms and readings.
 * (I found that we had a similar discussion all the way back in February 2013...)
 * Looks like Beer_parlour/2018/March was that thread. Inconclusive.  Re-reading that, the only unaddressed opposition appears to be from Shinji and Justin, both stating a preference for listing terms under "the most common form" regardless of wago or kango.  @Justin, reading the last paragraph currently there, it sounds like there might have been some confusion -- the proposal (as I understood it) was to list wago under kana spellings, and kango under kanji spellings.  Thus, only wago would go under the kana spellings by default.  (Your comment made it sound like you thought that all entries would go under kana spellings, including kango.)
 * Anyway, usability and visibility question: should we resume discussing the proposed JA organizational change in the BP thread from March, or start a new thread? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I was not confused there. In the context, I was only talking about wago. The kana entries would often not be the most common form for wago entries, so there would need to be usage notes about that. Anyway, for entries like 蕩蕩, the hiragana-as-entry approach would not be able to solve the alternative forms problem. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies then for my own confusion. :)  In the context, I thought you were referencing Shinji's comments about the kango term  /.
 * In a way, the use of hiragana as lemma spelling for wago would solve the issue for where to put alt forms. My concern above is about variation, where JA terms with a single etym, as at kango entries like  and, would have the alt forms at the very top according to the current state of WT:ELE, whereas multi-etym and multi-spelling representations have alt forms inherently subordinate to etym/reading.  However, the latter only really only happens for wago, so if we use a format more like at  or  for all wago entries, we wouldn't need any alt forms header for variant kanji spellings in wago entries.  That was my thinking, anyway.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

那
If the original sense (name of a state) shouldn't be in Etymology 1, nor should a new etymology section be created for it, where should I put it? Or should it not even be in the definitions? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already added it in etymology 3 for now; haven't you seen? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Well... oops.... Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

方頭括號
Hey! I found out what these are called 【 】: 方頭括號-- not sure if there is an English word for this. Thought you might find it interesting. Don't know if I formatted the page correctly. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are a type of square brackets, but I don't think there's an English word for them. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Phono-semantic compound
, etc: Got an idea for you. I've done like a couple hundred Phono-semantic compound glyph origins, but I'm thinking that a new user of wiktionary might be unfamiliar with the whole notion of the 所谓 'phono-semantic compound'. (一脸懵逼的样子说："唉，这所谓phono-semantic compound呢，你说是个啥意思") Is there a way to make it so that the words Phono-semantic compound which appear on a bunch of Chinese character pages is a blue link to the English language page Phono-semantic compound? This way, readers who don't know what a Phono-semantic compound is can click something and try to figure it out. It will require changing something about the format of the Han compound and liushu code so that it is automatically linked. I know nothing about how to make that kind of change, so I ping'd everybody to see what you all would say about it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It does not need to be capitalized. 2) It might be SoP. The definition at phonosemantic seems to suffice. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't stop making mistakes! I will keep trying to learn as I go. Sorry for causing more trouble. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

浮頭
Please check Cantonese - here mentions this form but I can not find pou4 in 浮.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. pou4 is the vernacular reading of 浮. I'll add it to 浮. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure about the fish sense. I've expanded the entry with more info. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

gu̿-chu̿
Is the KCR reading "gu̿-chu̿" a vernacular reading of the term 所以, while "sǔ-ǐ" is the literary one? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You can probably tell that gu̿-chu̿ isn't 所以—it's actually 故此. I'm not entirely sure about sǔ-ǐ, though. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Min Bei transliteration webpage gives "chǔ" for 此. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, chǔ is the character's pronunciation, but in 故此 it's pronounced as gu̿-chu̿, perhaps due to tone assimilation. This is a classic example to warn against concatenating pronunciations for single characters. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Index of regional term differences in Wikipedia
Hey, I was wondering if you could help me. In Chinese Wikipedia, they have a template for switching terms used in Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. in an article from one region to another. I know there should be an index where I can see an entire list of all of them but I can't find it. Could you help me with that? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a list of all of them, but you can take a look at the modules in w:zh:Category:公共转换组模块. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

巷道
Please check the Cantonese here when you get time. Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this word, but the Cantonese should be the same for both pronunciations. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's another Cantonese reading here that needs checking when you're free: 忽閃. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Most, if not all, words that only have a neutral tone distinction would not be have different pronunciations in Cantonese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

給您一顆星章
Thanks for the work you did on 朱提! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandarin pronunciation of 復, 覆 and 複
You said that in Mandarin these three are homophones. But I want to say that this is only true in MSM. In my accent, 複 is distinguishable from 復 and 覆; I pronounce 複 as two free variants, fu4 or fu3; I think they are from 方六切. (And in my accent only 複習 works and *復習 fails) I think I should say something and I just couldn't keep quiet about this issue XD. Dokurrat (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff! I thought all Mandarin dialects (especially the northern ones) lumped all these into fù. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * After seeing "compounds" section in 複, I found out I pronounce 複雜 as fu4za2~fu3za2，複習 as fu4xi2~fu3xi2; But for other compounds of 複, I think I only use fu4. So... I think I was too optimistic to say I can tell (all) 複 apart. Maybe a Northeastern Mandarin speaker would pronunce more 複 as fu3 than me, I guess? Dokurrat (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I think I've heard 複雜 as fǔzá. According to the Beijing row in 漢語方音字彙, 複 in 複雜 is fù / fǔ, 複 in 重複 is fù / fú, 覆 is fù and 復 in 復原 is fù. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Roger. Never heard of 重複 (fu2) in my daily life though. :) Dokurrat (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've heard 重複 (fu2) before in northern Mandarin, as well as Wu-flavoured Mandarin spoken by people from Shanghai. Also 復旦 becomes fu2 dan4. Wyang (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I've heard fúdàn as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I have heard fúdàn too Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I recently encountered 複查 pronounced as fǔchá. Haha! Dokurrat (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I just found out that I pronounce 複數 as fǔ-~fù-. Dokurrat (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

遐的
Is it a good idea to use zh-see in this entry?--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

絕無僅有
The Cantonese on the new 絕無僅有 page is broken I am not familiar enough with the romanization systems of Cantonese to correct it. Any thoughts? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

AjaxEdit.js question
Hello I just saw your edit here:. May I ask, does this mean there's a way to automatically add derived terms and compounds??? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not an automatic way to add derived terms, but a quicker way to edit right on the page without going to the edit page. You can try it out by adding  to User:Geographyinitiative/common.js. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 11:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

東西, 故事, et al
Words like these are pronounced without neutral tone (dōngxī, gùshì) in Taiwan, right? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The standard is to read them with a neutral tone, but it’s common for Taiwanese people to pronounce them with the original tones. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

文庙
Hello-- Here's what's displayed in the zh-see|文廟 box on the 文庙 page: "For pronunciation and definitions of 文庙 – see 文廟 (“Confucian temple}}; {{lb|zh|religion temple to Wendi in his other guises”)." You all taught me how to solve a similar problem related to linking wiktionary articles to wikipedia's geography articles, but I don't know how to fix this one. Any thoughts??? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A tricky case - 人心不足蛇吞象
I think I met a tricky case. I'm trying to render 人心不足蛇吞象's pinyin form. But I'm not sure how to spell it. "rénxīnbùzúshétūnxiàng" seems like an awful spaghetti, especially as the 蛇吞象 part can be satisfyingly spelt as three words shé tūn xiàng. 人心 seems to be a standalone word too; I can think up phrases like 人心險惡, 人心浮動, both used in MSM. The tricky part is 足 - it cannot be used alone (colloquially) in MSM to mean "to content; to satisfy" as far as I know. To spell this morpheme -zú- with bù as one word "bùzú" does not seem to work - There is a word "bùzú" (不足) in MSM, whose meaning is "not enough". And I cannot find any other phrases or words in which 不足 means "to not content; to not satisfy", so these's nothing to justify such sense exists for "bùzú" (不足) in MSM.

Is rénxīn bù-zú shé tūn xiàng acceptable? I think it looks somewhat unusual. Would you like to tell me your idea about how to spell this phrase? Dokurrat (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Or "rénxīn bù zú shé tūn xiàng" (leave zú alone), or "rénxīn-bù-zú shé tūn xiàng" (since 人心 and 不足 have a subject-verb relation, and if we choose zú not to spell alone, then the whole structure perhaps should be linked)? Dokurrat (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use hyphens for this. There's 貪心不足, so I think either rénxīn bù zú shé tūn xiàng or rénxīn bùzú shé tūn xiàng would work. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

聯想
Hi Justin, should Huhu9001's reversion be kept here do you think? AFAIK "also" is only used if the forms are very similar, not just variants. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you guys think? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Technically, also is for visually similar words; it should be removed. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , I agree with you and . It should be removed. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * what do you think? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To ---&#62; Tooironic:    頭 has a see also of 头. い has a see also of Appendix:Variations of "i". They are by no means "visually similar". If you were to insist on inventing such a new rule concerning also, I would recommend adding it to the template documentation. Huhu9001 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the Appendix being listed on い. As for 頭 and 头, there is a traditonal-simplified relationship. Does  look like  ? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To Suzukaze-c: So you have started adding exceptions to the rule "also is for visually similar words", which you have claimed just one day before. I think a reason should be given for this inconsistency. Huhu9001 (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The main issue is one of duplication. We already list variant forms on the main lemma page, as well as in the pinyin entries. Why list it a third time at the top of all linked pages? That's a lot of extra work for no reason. Remember some terms have three or more variant forms. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To ---&#62; Tooironic: Your argument of duplication is not supported by the example of 头 which is listed as both a variant form and a see also on the page of 頭. If you are worrying about too many variant forms, Appendix:Variations of "i" is a reasonable solution.  Huhu9001 (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The sole purpose of also is to help people who went to the wrong entry because of variation in characters or being unable to produce the correct characters on their keyboard (the original use was for Latin-alphabet entries that had differences in capitalization or diacritics). That's why it's at the top of the entry. It should only be used for a few very superficial variations that might lead someone to the wrong entry, not for everything that might be considered similar for one reason or another- sort of like the on Wikipedia that say "This page is about the country. For the bird, see Turkey (bird). For other uses, see Turkey (disambiguation)." Chuck Entz (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To Chuck Entz: Please clarify on what basis you judged 連想 not confusing enough to "lead someone to the wrong entry". Even the entry 聯想 itself states 連想 as confusing because it says "(not to be confused with) 連想". Huhu9001 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Instead of enthusiastically arguing why 連想 should not be a also of 聯想 here, I sincerely recommend composing a systematic guide that gives explicit rules on whether A should or should not be a also of B, and can be added to t:also/doc in order to prevent future possible edit disputes. Huhu9001 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course you do. Or building a model of Chicago out of toothpicks- anything to keep me busy somewhere else. This isn't a court of law, it's a wiki. No one person sets the standards here- certainly not me (a year of Mandarin three decades ago isn't enough for that). Besides, we're all volunteers, so no one has the time to come up with explicit rules that cover every possible case. If we have one, that's great, but otherwise, it's the community that decides.
 * Like it or not, you're going to have to convince your fellow editors that it should be done this way. And I don't mean you need to convince them that there's no explicit rule unequivocally prohibiting you from doing what want, but that you need to actually convince them that what you want happens to also be a good thing to do.
 * Now, as to the merits: also, being at the top, is for stuff that's totally independent of content on the rest of the page. As far as I can see, the confusion in this case has nothing to do with the characters themselves, but with similar readings and definitions, which are dealt with in the body of the page. There are far too many of those sorts of confusions to clutter up the top of the page with.
 * The only way I could see this being relevant to the top of the page would be if phonetically-based input methods were causing people to come up with the wrong characters. Most of the time, people know the difference between their mother and a horse and don't get confused, but similar meanings might let something like this slip by. I know very little about Chinese input methods, so I have no idea if it's relevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To Chuck Entz: What do you mean by saying "totally independent of content on the rest of the page"? Is 头 and 頭 in this case? Huhu9001 (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking? Do you really want to know, or are you just hoping I'll get tired of answering questions and go away? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To Chuck Entz: That is appalling. If you are not even willing to deduce your own conclusion and show your system of logic, how are we supposed to reason anything out? Why are you taking part in this conversation? Huhu9001 (talk)
 * , let's assume Huhu9001 is asking in good faith. Here's a summary of what seems to be the consensus of most editors here:
 * Visually similar entries are allowed in.
 * Traditional forms can have simplified forms in, and vice versa.
 * い shouldn't probably be listed under Appendix:Variations of "i" - generalized, this means we should not include things that are simply variants in different scripts.
 * 連想 shouldn't be included in at 聯想 - generalized, not visually similar, no traditional-simplified relation, no good reason to include it at the top since this is language-specific and can be included under See also
 * — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To justin(r)leung: I suppose Japansese shinjitai should also be included. Huhu9001 (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To justin(r)leung: But this does not explain 氣 and 炁, they are neither visually similar nor a traditional-simplified pair. Huhu9001 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * https://archives.mag2.com/0000102660/20050318003000000.html
 * Japanese 連想 is the current formal writing form of Japanese 聯想, which is a result of the 当用漢字 orthographic reform.
 * Simplified Chinese Characters is also a result of a orthographic reform (Chinese Character Simplification Scheme).
 * Thus if 联想 should be listed as a seealso of 聯想, so should 連想.
 * Huhu9001 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)