User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 26

Slowing Down
Hey- thanks for your tireless work and general guidance to me and others over the years. I am going to try to (and I would like your help if possible) slowing down my editing to "normal person" level, meaning I want to edit 'once in a while sometimes', but rarely. I made the major additions to Wikipedia and Wiktionary etc that I originally set out to make- I added a basic foundation of information about Wade-Giles derived terms, I expanded on the coverage/awareness of phonetic-semantic compounds, and I expanded the coverage of China/Taiwan-related geography topics in general. I write you so that you kind of have an idea what I am thinking and so that I can reinforce to myself that I should ignore the websites. Take care and let me know if you have any advice or thoughts! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's great to have you around to keep us all in check and to add content! But if I'm getting you right, you seem to be getting a little bit of, aren't you? I don't know how you want me to help, but I hope you find ways to slow down :D — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I kind of failed with the whole "slowing down" plan last week. My new plan is to stop editing every other week, starting now. Hopefully I will be embarrassed enough not to come back this week. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see you've been active. Do you want me to keep you accountable in anyway, like leave you a message when I see you editing on an off-week? You should maybe put up a wikibreak notice on your userpage as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw your message. Since like 2017 I have only gone at most one week not making any edits. Now I am going to try to take a real "break" and not edit at all for seven weeks. I don't know if I will be so transformed by not editing for so long that I will no longer be interested in editing by that time, but here goes nothing! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dapeng Cantonese
Just so you know, I happened to come across this thesis about Dapeng Cantonese while surfing the net. The dog2 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup, I already have this. That’s my only source for the Dapeng dialect (as spoken in Dapeng). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Tainan
Crap, I've treated MOE as Tainan all along. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why we had "GT" if we can't find it in that dictionary. Oh well, just try to go back and change it when you see it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those I've put as Tainan can probably also be found in 臺灣閩南語辭典. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably. There's quite a bit of overlap between the 2 dictionaries, I think. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

question
Hey Justin. Is there any reason why generates  instead of  now (e.g.at 明油)? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like has edited MOD:zh-new recently. I'm not sure if and where this was discussed, though. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for checking. I just thought I should bring this to someone's attention in case it needed discussing. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. See WT:RFDO. Justin, you were pinged, did you not get the ping? Benwing2 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I don't think I was pinged, so the ping must have been added afterwards? I don't object to changing all these headword-line templates to . I do think this needs to notified more widely so that other Chinese editors are aware of the discussion. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are the other Chinese editors who need to be pinged? Benwing2 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've pinged them at WT:RFDO. Not sure if I'm missing people though. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

another issue
Hey Justin. It seems cannot display in simplified/variant forms e.g. at 零增长. Would you know how to fix that? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * By not using :) — justin(r)leung { (t...) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol, OK. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User removing stuff
Hi, you might want to take a look at this. RcAlex36 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

《古壮字字典》
Zhuang sawndip lookup is not available now. http://www.guoxuedashi.com/kangxi/pic.php?f=guzzi&p=220 Do you have other web site? --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's available for download on some sites. I could email you if you'd like. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

給
What is the standard of necessity? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Chinese covers Old Chinese and Middle Chinese as well, so saying that 給 comes from Middle Chinese is a) redundant and b) wrong (for OC and MC). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as know, etymology sections also cover the development of words.

Modern mandarin pronunciation 1 and 2 comes respectively from 白讀 and 文讀 of So is this OK? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 白讀 and 文讀 are usually mentioned in the pronunciation template, so I don't know if it's necessary to mention it in the etymology. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean the vague terms "colloquial" and "literary" used in those templates? They are at best confusing, especially in the current notation. Does it say the pronunciation "gěi" is colloquial in MSC? That is not true. In fact the difference is that "gěi" is still productive, and is used when 给 stands alone, while "jǐ" remains mostly in fixed compound. 白讀 and 文讀 are not pronunciational aspects. They are etymological aspects. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how 白讀 and 文讀 have been marked for other varieties, like Min Nan, where these patterns are much more common. It would be unwieldy to put all of this information under the etymology (especially when it may be unclear where each layer comes from). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Min Nan goes that way if it is good for Min Nan. There is no reason Madarin must follow Min Nan. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we put info on Mandarin in the etymology, why wouldn't we be putting it in for other varieties? We generally want to be consistent in treating the varieties and not have idiosyncrasies within the Chinese header. I guess we can say that the Mandarin colloquial reading is an irregular reflex of MC in the etymology, but mentioning that both readings come from MC is not necessary unless we do that for every entry. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have etymological information for other varieties, just put it there, why not? In the first place, etymology sections all need to be treated specifically. What else are you expecting? A "general" solution once and forever for all etymologies? 17:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but we don't want to clutter the etymology section with information that can be placed in other sections. We need to have some general guidelines for what goes in the etymology and what doesn't. All modern varieties are assumed to be descendants of MC (except for Min and maybe Waxiang), so mentioning the MC etymology is what is redundant. Since 文白異讀 has always been treated in the pronunciation section, I think that's where we should put that information. We should probably have a better system of linking for the words "colloquial"/"vernacular" and "literary" to the Wikipedia page on 文白異讀 or to an appendix here because they don't refer to synchronic use necessarily. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cluttering the etymology section - bad
 * Cluttering the pronunciation section - good
 * Even to the extent that many important details are collapsed and almost unreadable. I know there are some trade-offs of having a unified Chinese L2, but that does not mean we should bend over to its disadvantages and reject any effort to compensate them. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think it's easier to put it in the pronunciation section because we are referring to the different readings. We definitely should make this information more accessible, but this would require a bit of infrastructure to be built in the code of, which is admittedly getting quite clunky. This should be discussed a bit more widely with the other editors to see what they think and what changes we should make rather than treating things case by case. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see that some issues have been addressed since the post. I prefer to continue to use where possible. Multiple readings for multiple varieties and etymologies certainly creates more obstacles but everything is possible if there is a will to make it work. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Question: what is "historical" referring to? An older form of Mandarin? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify they do not convey a colloquial or literary sense in the modern language. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that necessary? The link to Wikipedia should clarify that, no? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Because "colloquial" or "literary" we are using here has a significantly different meaning from what one may understand elsewhere on Wiktionary. In detail, we can say the 2 readings entered the modern Mandarin via 2 different routes, one colloquial and one literary, but that's too long. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But when they're in the Chinese context modifying "reading", they have a different meaning than the usual, and the link to Wikipedia would make that clear enough. We could make it extra clear by also adding the Chinese words for them in parentheses. I think adding "historical" makes it ambiguous as to what it means. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it is ambiguous but I believe it can be disambiguated. "Colloquial" or "literary" should have modifiers to prevent them from being misleading. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me what "historical" means especially because it says "from the historical [...] readings" even though the readings are not historical - they can still be classified as colloquial or literary today. Maybe "historically" might be slightly better? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "historically" is OK to me. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

倒儿爷, 嗝儿屁, et al
Hiya. Was just wondering if there is any way we can fix the display bug here (word=)? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be fixed. (There should be better ways of fixing this, but it should be good enough now.) — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Teochew second syllable tone sandhi
Just so you know, it really appears that tone sandhi on the second syllable happens in Teochew not and not just Hokkien. See this video where she gives an example for the character 米. Is there any way to incorporate that into the pronunciation module? It's actually fairly common in Teochew. You'll also hear it in words like 正手 and 倒手, and that's one way to distinguish Hokkien from Teochew, because in the two words I just mentioned, Hokkien does not have tone sandhi on the second syllable but Teochew does. The dog2 (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You should take a closer look at the IPA at 倒手, which does show sandhi on the second syllable. This seems to be different from qingsheng, which we do have to deal with. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that the second syllable in a word like 齒漱 is just qingsheng and not tone sandhi? If you listen to this, the second syllable does sound like the tone has changed. The dog2 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not qinsheng for 齒漱, but what sandhi is there in the video? 213 to 21? Maybe that's just because it's not as obviously rising back up? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with IPA for tones, but from what I know 漱 on its own is supposed to be pronounced similarly to Hokkien 手, but in this case it sounds a little lighter, along the lines of the Hainanese tone for the word. The dog2 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you got a little mixed up. See this and listen to the audio for 漱 (ciu3), which should not sound like Hokkien 手. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Translations of mahjong terms
Just a question here. As you know, I have recently created a couple of mahjong-related entries. Usually, the Japanese mahjong terms are directly borrowed from the Chinese ones, so in that case, it's easy to list them as ancestor or descendant words, but what is the proper way to list the Japanese translations of Chinese mahjong terms and vice-versa when they're not etymologically related? For instance, the hand known as 十三幺 in Chinese is called 国士無双 in Japanese, which as you can clearly see, are not etymologically related. The dog2 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You could put in a "See also" section with "Japanese: " in front. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for some advice
I was looking at the entry for 相信 and have made the observation that in the Penang dialect of Hokkien, the second syllable is always sandhied because it is always followed by 講 in all the examples of usage I can think of so that it is "to believe that". Is it a good idea to make a note on the page about this observation? I also observe that the entry for 講 doesn't have a definition describing such a usage of the word in Hokkien. Is it a good idea to add that in as well since there are other instances of such a use for the word like 想講 which means "to think that".? Fredrick Campbell (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don’t think we need to talk about tone sandhi when a verb is followed by something after it because that’s a grammatical feature that isn’t specific to this word in particular. As for 講, that is kind of interesting. I think I need more examples of how exactly it’s used before seeing if that usage should be added. It’d also be good if you could find examples out “in the wild” (which could be a little more difficult with Penang Hokkien having relatively little documentation). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I found a paper that talks about this kind of usage of 講 in Taiwanese Hokkien. Is this what you’re talking about? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Precisely. In the example I gave, it is used as a complementizer as the paper calls it. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Postscript: I didn't finish reading the paper in case you are wondering. Just finished the first page and read a bit of the second. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

講
I see you have added the definition. I, however, am having issue with the 咧 in the example since its entry didn't seem to suggest that it could be used as a conditional marker. Is this a translational error or such a definition for the word is simply not included? I don't know because Penang Hokkien's conditinoal marker is ta-pí.


 * It’s not conditional, but progressive. I just translated it that way because that’s the most natural way I can translate it into English. There isn’t really a conditional used in the original text but the context lends itself to that kind of meaning. It’s not a perfect translation, so if you have a suggestion, I’d be happy to hear it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW, ta-pí isn’t conditional afaik, but just “but”, isn’t it? You’d use something like ā-sī for introducing a conditional clause. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah I made a mistake about ta-pí. It's nā-sī for a conditional clause. This is probably just my ignorance about the sentence since that sentence construction simply doesn't make sense to a speaker like me and my only way of making sense of it is to modify the words. I mean, what does it mean to think that you are a singer? Fredrick Campbell (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It’s weird, and the only way for it to make sense is to include the second part with it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like I am no better at translating that than you, so that's the best we've got. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User making bad Chinese edits
You should perhaps ask this user to stop making Chinese edits. They have no knowledge of the language and are making awful edits. RcAlex36 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose the speedy deletion of 圣方济会. That user doesn't have a clue what they are doing. RcAlex36 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

𫢗時
澄海方言研究, 泰國三個漢語方言研究 and 馬來西亞三個漢語方言研究 seem to suggest the word for "what time" is 底𫢗時 instead of 𫢗時. Should we be putting 底𫢗時 for those 方言點 instead of 𫢗時 in Module:zh/data/dial-syn/什麼時候? RcAlex36 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you watch Allan Tan's videos on YouTube, he says 𫢗時, so that is certainly used in Singapore too. The dog2 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 底𫢗時 would be right for those points if that's what they say. Why do you think 底𫢗時 has any conflict with 𫢗時? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, where did you find 底𫢗時 in 澄海方言研究? I can't seem to find it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * p. 253. RcAlex36 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I was just looking at the vocabulary part. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

這個
As it happens, I found a small segment of video on YouTube which has the person pronounce the word here at the 24 second (這個le-bai). I concede that he pronounces it "chit" for the first syllable, but the second syllable is clearly "le". Personally, I pronounce the first syllabe "cher," but that may be because the two vowel sounds are extremely similar when followed immediately by a syllable like "le" and is hard to notice without a playback. I still don't know how other people pronounce it, but this is a document way one person pronounces it. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the first syllable's usually pronounced chit. Penang Hokkien Dictionary also documents it as such. As for the second syllable, I'm not sure if the l is just a result of linking from the t or if 個 is always pronounced as le. The tone does sound like tone 1, but based on the "Northern Malaysia vocabulary" from the Speak Hokkien Campaign website, it should be tsit ê (POJ chit ê). 馬來西亞檳城福建話研究 gives tsit5 le13 (POJ tsit lê)., what do your sources say? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In Penang, there has been a sound change and re-analysis from chit-ê to chit-lê to chih-lê. The re-analysed lê also appears in contexts without a historic -t, e.g. nō͘-lê ("two").  (This innovation isn't restricted to Penang, but my impression is that it has progressed further in Penang than in many other Hokkien-speaking communities.)  For example, de Gijzel translates "this one" as chí-lê, and Tan gives both chit-lê and chit-ê.  Churchman gives examples like chi̍h-lê, chih-lê, há-lê, pa-lê (where we could argue there is assimilation), but also examples like nō͘-lê, saⁿ-lê, where lê has clearly taken on a life of its own.  It competes with the original ê and I don't have a good sense of their relative prevalence in different contexts.  When discussing lê, Churchman writes: "the alternative ê is also commonly used, but especially when the preceding number does not end in a consonant."
 * As cher isn't standard POJ, I just want to clarify what you mean by this. Are you following Tai-lo to indicate schwa, or do you mean something else?  If you mean that the vowel is closer to schwa in fast speech, I don't think we need a separate transcription for this.  For the second syllable, I don't think gê is a common pronunciation in Penang.
 * In characters, Churchman writes 个 for ê and 嚟 for lê, reserving 個 for kò. I don't know who else uses a distinct character for lê.  Churchman also writes 即 for both chit and chih, reserving 這 for che.  The list of variant characters for this entry might be very long, as there are several commonly used characters for both syllables.
 * For this entry, I would support including chit-lê and chih-lê (de Gijzel's chí-lê could be included but is probably unnecessary). Freelance Intellectual (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added chit-lê, chih-lê and chí-lê. The last one is included because it's still kind of different. BTW, which work of Churchman are you referring to? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a draft dictionary, still unpublished. I think Churchman plans to publish it with Areca Books.  Freelance Intellectual (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! Did you get a copy of that directly from Churchman? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I obviously can't distribute it, but I thought it would be worth sharing the above points.  I think it will be a great reference work once it's published! Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was following Tai-lo to indicate the schwa. I kind of think that pronunciation is a reanalysis that may be my own doing. I have not actually paid to much attention to this particular phrase, so I can't be certain if the schwa is used by people other than me. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying! I can completely believe that you and many others pronounce the "i" vowel closer to schwa in this context.  Every phoneme has variation.  However, writing "er" would imply that it's a different phoneme.  Tai-lo originally included "er" to write a phoneme used by Quanzhou-derived dialects in Taiwan, and the Hokkien Language Association of Penang adapted "er" for a phoneme used in some loan words.  I would find it very interesting, but I would be surprised, if this phoneme has spread to other words too. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hokkien for scallop
It is "kāng-nīao-joo". I am trying to figure out the orthography for this phrase but have no idea how to do it. Meanwhile, I also have no idea how to make this addition to the dictionary and am not even sure if this phrase is used outside of Penang. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking for 江瑤珠, which means "conpoy" (dried scallops). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was not aware it was specific to dried scallops. Come to think of it, it has always been referring to dried scallops every time it has been used. Should I bother to add that pronunciation in? Fredrick Campbell (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then again, I may have misheard that consonant. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Some random thoughts about etymology
The first syllable in 甩(lɐk55)仔 ("bird") in Zengcheng Cantonese may be cognate with 🇨🇬. Guangzhou Cantonese also has.

Is 石鼓洲 (an island in Hong Kong) actually + ? RcAlex36 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 1st etymology - probably need a little more evidence, though it's interesting. The immediate problem I can see is probably why there's a -t in Guangzhou Cantonese.
 * As for 石鼓洲, it seems quite likely. Cantonese Wikipedia seems to say this as well, but it doesn't cite a source. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Zhuang dictionary
Hi,

Could you please remind of the online Chinese-Zhuang dictionary, if it's still working? The URL contained "cd." It became unavailable and I stopped checking it and now I lost it altogether. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That one isn't working anymore, and there's another one that seems to be also down. I'm using downloaded copies of dictionaries, which have less coverage, especially for newer terms. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Position of Images
I noticed that you moved some of my I images from being under the pronunciation section to the top under the forms template. Is there a particular rule about image placement? I’m placing them at the bottom of the pronunciation section because I want them to be next to the definition. Just asking so that I don’t create extra work for you. Languageseeker (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There isn't a particular rule, but the best place to put them is either under the definition header or under because images don't really have anything to do with pronunciation. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. I know that images don't have much to do with pronunciation, but it's more for the order that things will be displayed on the page. I've found that when there is either a large pronunciation, the images are off-screen when the user scrolls down to the pronunciation. Therefore, they images no longer serve the purpose of aiding the user. Therefore, I sometimes put them at the bottom of the pronunciation section so that the user can see them when reading the definition. They're a similar problem when an entry has an extensive entomology section; the forms and images get in the way and create weird formatting issues. Would it make sense to talk this over with the other Chinese contributors and see if we can come up with some standards or guidelines? Languageseeker (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with putting them in the pronunciation section is that they will appear there in mobile, which is not ideal. I just looked and found Help:Images, which is the only page that really talks about this, but it's really vague about positioning. If you really want to talk about this, feel free to post it somewhere where other people can see, like WT:BP or WT:T:AZH. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)