User talk:Justinrleung

Archives

Archives

• Archive 1 (June 2014–March 2016)
• Archive 2 (March–July 2016)
• Archive 3 (July–November 2016)
• Archive 4 (November 2016–March 2017)
• Archive 5 (March–July 2017)
• Archive 6 (July–August 2017)
• Archive 7 (August–December 2017)
• Archive 8 (December 2017–March 2018)
• Archive 9 (March–May 2018)
• Archive 10 (May–July/August 2018)
• Archive 11 (July–September 2018)
• Archive 12 (September–November 2018)
• Archive 13 (November 2018–January/February 2019)
• Archive 14 (January–March 2019)
• Archive 15 (March–May 2019)
• Archive 16 (June–September 2019)
• Archive 17 (September–December 2019)
• Archive 18 (January–March 2020)
• Archive 19 (March–April 2020)
• Archive 20 (April–May 2020)
• Archive 21 (May–June 2020)
• Archive 22 (June–July 2020)
• Archive 23 (July–August 2020)
• Archive 24 (August–September 2020)
• Archive 25 (September 2020)
• Archive 26 (September–November 2020)
• Archive 27 (November–December 2020)
• Archive 28 (December 2020–March 2021)
• Archive 29 (March–May 2021)
• Archive 30 (May–July 2021)
• Archive 31 (July–October 2021)
• Archive 32 (October 2021–January 2022)
• Archive 33 (January–March 2022)
• Archive 34 (March–May 2022)
• Archive 35 (May–July 2022)
• Archive 36 (July–December 2022)
• Archive 37 (December 2022–April 2023)
• Archive 38 (April 2023–January 2024)

巊

Using the normal /zh-forms/ template causes this character entry to give "巊" as a one-box "traditional and simplified" character, but this isn't correct. 𪩎 is the simplified form located at U+2AA4E. I suspect it's a template/module issue; if you can help with the issue, I'd really appreciated it. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13: The template always says that unless you put in the simplified form in |s=. It’s always been done manually. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, I must have lost some brain cells over time and totally spaced out on how to do that. I think my mind has refreshed since I posted that comment about how to do formatting. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13: No worries! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

傻眼 chiefly Taiwan

Frankly speaking I also thought it's a normal word used on both sides of the Taiwan Strait but after today when I found this I recalled and noticed it was indeed more rarely spoken and heard in the Mainland than in Taiwan. Yes you're right, it's on Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, but that was indicated by chiefly, I think.Maraschino Cherry (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maraschino Cherry: It's probably not great to just support this with one video. The comments are also flooded with comments of how it's commonly used different parts of Mainland China too. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Singaporean Cantonese sample

You might want to check out this TikTok channel: [1]. I think she's a fourth generation Singaporean Cantonese, and her parents are not from Hong Kong. You can probably glean some pronunciation information from her because there are some very peculiar ways Singaporean Cantonese is pronounced. Notice how the "eu" vowel combination is pronounced more like an "io". The dog2 (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@The dog2: Thanks for letting me know! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

拥障

I've tried to figure out what this (likely archaic) word/phrase means but no luck. Does it mean something like "to keep/obstruct from gathering"? That's the best I could come up with. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13: Sorry for the late reply! I'm not sure what this would mean. Is there more context? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is. It's part of a definition of an archaic Chinese character, so it's not all that urgent of a matter. I might try to find the source later. Bumm13 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it's a hù reading definition of 摢. The original source is the Jiyun. Bumm13 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct location for Module sources

Re your reversion at Module:zh/data/dial-syn/新加坡, I have sources, but didn't see any other sources for the other entries and assumed the sourcing was to be given with the destination entries. Where should they go then, in Documentation? AjaxSmack (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: You are right in that the tables don't need to be cited in the module. The general practice is to perhaps include a source in the edit summary, especially when things are not coming from commonly referenced sources. I had some doubts about whether all those terms you added are indeed used in Singaporean Hokkien; I guess I should've asked you directly rather than removing them entirely first. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll do it in the summary then. "are indeed used in Singaporean Hokkien" → were used in Singaporean Hokkien. They're mostly old newspapers. Thanks. AjaxSmack (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: How would you be sure that they were indeed Singaporean Hokkien (and not another variety spoken in Singapore)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, before the adoption of 白話 by newspapers, I suppose the names could be read in any language, but the pronunciations are confirmed by more modern sources (like this — sorry, only snippet view) and already appear here in part in entries like 石叻. AjaxSmack (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: I don't recommend putting all of the forms under "Singaporean Hokkien" unless it is confirmed to be really used by Hokkien speakers (back then or now). There's a difference between what's written and the spoken language. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What about something like this or this? If not in Singapore Hokkien, where should it be placed? AjaxSmack (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: If they are the same word written in different ways, we generally only put one in the table. We currently have 石叻 as the main form; 息力 and 實叻 seem to be the same word. As for the forms with 埠 and 坡, do we have clearer sources? The second source seems to say it's 峇峇福建話, and the way it's written looks like it's kind of mixing some Mandarin-based writing like 吃 and 和, making it difficult to make out what is necessarily intended here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

埠 is covered here. I don't have access to print sources here, but this is a snippet of one. A cursory web search returns this and in the poem here. Singapore's Chinese name wasn't officially decided until the 1970s, and these variants were widely used until then (e.g. the Presbyterian Church in Singapore was called 實叻坡長老大會). AjaxSmack (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: The full text for the second link is here, but it's unclear whether that's referring to Singaporean Hokkien or some other variety of Hokkien. It suggests that 埠 is read as pho, which makes me think 埠 is representing the same word as 坡. The third link (codingnote.cc) points to Teochew, not Hokkien. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW, how was the module originally populated? AjaxSmack (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: You can look at the edit history and see. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I did, but I only see one reference for a later addition. There's no reference for the original creation of any subsequent additions (except that one) that I can tell. AjaxSmack (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Module:IPA error

Just to let you know, when I created Cantonese jyutping syllable entries (such as "syu3", etc.) using "jaːi̯" in Template:Jyutping-IPA is giving me the following error:

Lua error in Module:IPA at line 303: Invalid IPA: replace ! with ǃ, : with ː, I with ɪ, L with ʟ and g with ɡ

The error appears regardless of which tone letters I use (both in jaai2 and jaai5. Bumm13 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13: Hi, the template takes Jyutping as input, not IPA, like this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. That said, it works fine with IPA input for everything but the "jaː" text, it seems. Thanks for the help! Bumm13 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13: It would still be giving the wrong Jyupting and Yale, I believe. Please only input Jyutping with this template. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I just figured out the problem (at my end). There are similar but different Template:IPA and Template:Jyutping-IPA templates, which obviously work differently... derp. Thanks for helping my poor brain with the matter! Bumm13 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

On if single "不" can be used to answer a question.

According to this entry on a ROC Mandarin dictionary, "不" has no such usage like an English "no". I believe using single "不" to answer such questions is grammatically wrong. 列维劳德 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@列维劳德 You are misinformed. 现代汉语八百词（增订本）(1999) writes,

不 bù〔副) 1.单用，回答问话，表示与问话意思相反。他知道吗?──～，他不知道｜他不知道吧?──～，他知道｜再坐一会儿吧──～了(啦)，我还有事呢

RcAlex36 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @RcAlex36. @列维劳德: I've added a couple of quotes that show this usage. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

煤炭

Hi Justin. Do you have any idea why this text is coming up next to "煤炭": [[Category:|火09火05]] ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Another example is at 農業. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Forgot to reply, but it should be fixed now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Label Problem with Taiwanese

@Justinrleung Just wondering if you're aware of the problem with the current module that generates the labels for Hokkien. The word "Taiwanese" disappears when it's used together with another location label. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Do you have a particular example? @Benwing2 has added a new function that might affect how things display. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Lots of examples, such as 先生媽, 兔仔尾, 內山猴, 刁古董, 刀肉, 刀鋩, and lots more. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser @Justinrleung Apologies, I slightly messed up the function that postprocesses Chinese labels. Should be fixed now. I'm working on a new version that only removes 'Taiwanese', 'Hokkien' and such when the word "and" or "&" occurs. Benwing2 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

List of all entries marked with "ph" in the pronunciation

Hi! Do you know if it's possible to get a list of all the entries that has "ph" in the Hokkien pronunciation? Thanks! Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: A hacky way is this search: [2]. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually that might not give you all the entries because it would only give entries where ph is the last in a list of locations for a POJ string. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Or perhaps Special:Search/incategory:"Hokkien lemmas" "Philippines" insource:ph. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

蘇格

Hi! Just wondering why you have removed the Hakka pronunciation and added Malaysian Cantonese to the entry. I was under the impression that this kind of borrowing from Malay was a feature of Malaysian Hakka. Are you sure sou1 gaak3 is used in Malaysian Cantonese?

— 86.10.102.28 02:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the Hakka pronunciation was removed because the module currently only works for Taiwanese Sixian Hakka and Meixian Hakka. Yes, it is also used in Malaysian Cantonese according to 馬來西亞吉隆坡粵語之馬來語借詞研究. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

臭經/臭经

Hi, just wondering where you got that 經/经 means “to evade; to pass the buck” in Teochew? Can't find this meaning attested anywhere else, e.g. wiktionary, mogher, etc. thanks! Danielbunchie (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Danielbunchie: Hi, it's based on the following:

《潮州方言詞匯》經 [想法推委]：康課膠己著做個孬～別人去做。 [工作自己必須做的不可想法推委別人去做。]

《潮·普双言语词典》经 (6) 【推】/【推托】（把事情）推给别人；故意拒绝：你免在～（你别推托）。 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you - very interesting! Would add those books to references but I'm not sure how to. Danielbunchie (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

兩餸飯 vs 三餸飯

Regarding the new dialect table I created for 雜菜飯, is there a difference between 兩餸飯 and 三餸飯 in Hong Kong Cantonese? Is 兩餸飯 a generic term for economy rice, or does it specifically refer to economy rice with two dishes? The dog2 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@The dog2: I believe it has to be two dishes, but I may be wrong. I don't exactly know if the idea of 兩餸飯 is exactly equivalent to 雜菜飯; these are similar concepts but may be too regional to be considered equivalent? @RcAlex36, Wpi, would you like to chime in? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on my experience, 兩餸飯 is the generic name of this type of meal, so one would say they are going to a 兩餸飯 store even if they want to order three dishes. (There's also 雙餸飯 which is synonymous to 兩餸飯) – wpi (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wpi, Justinrleung: So should we add 雙餸飯 to the dialect table then? The dog2 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

普法爾茨方言

Hi Justin! First of all, I want to say that my knowledge of Chinese is very very limited. However, I'm intrested in it, and I found a Chinese word that I want to add to Wiktionary. I created a preliminary page for it, and I want to ask you some questions before I actually add it:

• Does it even meet the CFI?
• Is the pinyin correct? Particularly, do you need a space between cí and fāng?
• Do you need the "Other tone-sandhi patterns may be heard" note? I just copied it from the 普法爾茨 entry.

Thank you in advance. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tc14Hd: Hi! I think any qualifier + 方言 is generally SoP, so I think it would fall outside of CFI. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

拖蘇

Hello. Could you please check this Cantonese entry? I created it based on the translation added to power strip. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Looks okay to me. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

焗親

Would you mind checking this entry? Someone added it with pinyin, but I don't think this is used in Mandarin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

雨濛仔

This entry has had a module error for a while now because @Mar vin kaiser used a Hokkien syllable that the modules didn't recognize. I'm coming to you because I have no idea what the procedure is for addressing that (I don't think they know either), and I figure you would know- or at least know who knows. CAT:E is only for emergencies, and we can't have things sit there for weeks over simply not having the correct information in the right place. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Justinrleung: I tried to fix it. Please check if my edits in Module:nan-pron is okay. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: For one thing, "maŋ" is a licit syllable in both Jinjiang and Philippine Hokkien. The word is in 晋江市-方言志. It's definitely not saying "baŋ" because on p. 92, they romanized 蠓 as "baŋ⁵⁵". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I will not comment on Philippine Hokkien here, but this does not agree with the note in the same source that m, n and ŋ only go with nasalized rhymes in Jinjiang. /ãŋ/ does not exist as a rime in Jinjiang as far as I know. It is more likely that this is a typo in the source. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: What you said makes sense, but let me check if I can find contrary evidence. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Based on my interactions with Jinjiang people in Metro Manila, they speak the same way as us, where "pái" (擺) becomes "mái", m̄-bián (毋免) becomes "mián", "m̄-thang" (毋通) becomes "mang". I found this Douyin video of a Jinjiang woman talking, and on 06:55, she said "mang iá toā-sòe-sim". So the syllable "mang" really exists in Jinjiang, and my theory is that the person typing that just typed how they said that, so he typed "maŋ" for 雨濛仔 without thinking that it contradicted what it said in the rimes above. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I think contractions may be a tricky thing to work with as evidence. I also think phonological analysis for these things may not always reflect exact pronunciation always but may involve some level of abstraction. Because b-/m- are almost always in complementary distribution, it is also possible that the transcriber made a mistake. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: But at least for the contraction "mang", I would put that contraction into the 毋通 entry, so could you revise the module to make "mang" a licit syllable for Jinjiang? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I'm not sure. 晋江市方言志 says it's /baŋ33/ on page 125. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

剛果（金）

Hi Justin. I just came across this entry which an anon IP added back in 2017. As you can see, its title features a pair of brackets. Is this acceptable on the English Wiktionary? I have never encountered this before. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I think it's acceptable if attested (which I think it is). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

戲棚官話

The current gloss is not clear enough, it makes it sound like it's actually part of the production. Plus you reverted the addition of Jyutping, so overall, not an ok rollback. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: I have reverted your edit again with an explanation. It is not restricted to stage instructions as it was the main language of performance as well before it was (relatively recently) replaced with Cantonese. It is also not a form of Cantonese, so it is wrong to gloss it as "stage Cantonese". This seems to translate it as "stage-Mandarin" or "performance-Mandarin". The pronunciation was also not correct, as 話 should be waa6-2, not waa6. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair comment to make and my bad on the waa6 :) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

下去

Sources, in the sense of a dictionary, no. But search for videos of 如此斷腸花燭夜 (for example this one at 1:37) and they ALL have it. The haa6 rather than saa6 was my mistake, but in any case, this is a Cantonese rendition of a Mandarin dialect variant of xiàqù with the usual x > s change going from Mandarin to Cantonese. If 老兄 > 撈鬆 laau1 sung1 is Cantonese, then so is saa6 ceoi2 Akerbeltz (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

PS it's not RS but see the last section of this article on bilibili. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: It is unclear to me that this should be considered Cantonese rather than actually 戲棚官話 (again, not a variety of Cantonese, but a variety of Mandarin). It seems quite different from 撈鬆 and 可惱也, which have incorporated into contexts outside of contexts where 戲棚官話 is expected. The dubious haa6 pronunciation, which you have since corrected, was also part of the reason for the revert. However, I don't know if the pronunciation of 去 is correct either; it seems to be ceoi3 rather than ceoi2 to my ear (also corroborated with the transcription given at the Wikipedia article Cantonese opera#Speech types. Either way, I don't think this is part of Cantonese. @RcAlex36, Wpi, Kc_kennylau, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

On a purely practical level, either we treat it as Cantonese or we need a new Mandarin category, because if we're not willing to count it as Cantonese, then what ARE we supposed to document saa6 ceoi3 (or 3-2) under? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Justin's view that this isn't part of standard Cantonese, but a very specific type of speech used in Cantonese opera. And using the same logic one could have 知道 (zi1 dau2) (which occurs as the next dialogue after the 下去 in 帝女花之香夭) or any other similar phrases found in Cantonese opera.

Regarding the pronunciation, based on the 不須侍女伴身旁 下去 line in 帝女花之香夭, I could at least find /sa˨ tsɵy˨˨˥/ in 任劍輝 1959?, /ha˨ tsɵy˨˨˥/ in 任劍輝 1972, saa6 ceoi3 (or maybe ceoi6) in 張國榮 1999 and 劉惠鳴 2009. – wpi (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@wpi: Thanks for finding these. I hear saa6 ceoi3/ceoi5 in all of these excerpts. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

戲棚官話 is not and should not be treated as Cantonese. It is a form of Mandarin based on the historical Guilin dialect with Cantonese phonotactics, used only in Cantonese opera. It is simply not possible for Wiktionary to document every variety of Chinese in existence, and I would prefer that varieties spoken in the daily lives of many be documented instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

儥記

I would like to know why this word is removed, as the character 𣍐 does not seem to correspond to the pronunciation "mae" and does not exist in the Foochow dictionary. That's why I added this word 儥記 ("mae kay") to the "Fuzhou" column. [My mum & maternal grandmother speak Foochow sometimes, that's why I'm very sure & confident that the word 儥記 is the correct form for "forget".] 儥记 | 榕典 (ydict.net) 220.255.254.157 02:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 儥 is a variant of 𣍐 (mâ̤) - because of how vowels work in Fuzhounese, this would be pronounced as /mɛ/ after tone sandhi in the phrase 𣍐記. 福州方言詞典 (1998) writes this word as 𣍐記. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Add Category:English 4chan slang to coal

I originally left a message on User:Surjection's talk page however I received no response, and looking through the recent changes I found your page and you happen to be an admin, so I am turning to you for this request (though I understand that this page is not your domain of editing): as some of the etymologies state that the word coal is used on soyjak.party and 4chan as slang, the page should be updated to include the category English 4chan slang. I cannot edit it myself to add the category, so I would like to request that this category be added (it is already supported by some of the page content). Additionally, to the noun sense of the word please add #: Antonym: gem and to the adjective sense please add #: Antonym: gemmy. 129.97.16.82 15:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Longyan Min Weird Tone Sandhi

@Justinrleung I'm currently looking at Longyan Min in 龙岩市志, and it's weird because it says that 阴平 (334) should not have tone sandhi, but if you look at the vocabulary section, they have sandhi like "334-55" before "仔" and I also see "334-11". Any idea why? Thanks! Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

For example, for 面頰／面颊 (miànjiá), in the source, it writes "bin334-11 kie55", but the tone sandhi rules don't make 阴平(334) into 阳平(11), so I just transcribed the word with 阳平 instead, "bîn-kiēe". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I'm not sure if that's the best thing to do. I think when we encounter these issues, we should still have the right base tones, but also leave a {{attn}} template to signal that the sandhi doesn't seem right. There seems to be some issues with different sources not agreeing (within the same work sometimes!), so it's probably best to deal with them by collecting more examples to see what the patterns are. Longyan is really messy right now also because whoever implemented it into the module did a rather sloppy job. I have been thinking of completely redoing Longyan and separating it from Hokkien proper because it is quite a distinct dialect that should probably not be treated in the same way as other Quan-Zhang dialects. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Terms that are 訪+COUNTRY or 赴+COUNTRY

Hi! I was just wondering whether there was a vote on keeping these or deleting these entries. Thanks. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Talk:訪韓 for 訪X. I think 赴X is also SoP. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

連

I deleted and re-wrote many words in this article. This is not a vandalism. I did this because many problems are found. For example, some meanings are used in modern Chinese very few, but they did not have the labels. In addition, I do not know lots about English Wiktionary, thus please guide me on management and rules. HerrGutmannsWiki (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed these: may I delete this message after this is finished? I do not want to let it to be in others’ discussion page forever. HerrGutmannsWiki (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked about this, because it seems to be hard to delete messages in a discussion page. HerrGutmannsWiki (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@HerrGutmannsWiki: You should take a look at how other entries are formatted before making big changes to entries. The edits were reverted because they do not follow the specific format of entries; see WT:EL and WT:AZH (especially WT:AZH#Basic headers for single characters). There is also a lot of changes that do not seem to be just adding senses. Removal of information out of process is discouraged; there are specific requests that can be made if there are issues with particular senses, such as WT:RFVCJK and WT:RFDCJK.

And no, deleting messages is not encouraged because this is a wiki - discussion is a key component of building consensus. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)