User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 17

Problem with Module:hak-pron

In case you weren't already aware of it: see CAT:E. It seems to revolve around not detecting gd=sib6 for 十 as having a palatal initial. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Also gd=sim1 for 心, gd=zid5 for 績, and gd=ziong1 for 漿 Chuck Entz (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for reminding me! It was catching some errors in the input, and all of it should be fixed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

定當

Hiya. Could you check the non-Mandarin 'lects here when you are free? They were automatically generated and may be inaccurate. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Justinrleung/Archive 17,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A few questions about Chinese entries on Wiktionary

So, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and Wiktionary editing (having owned my account for only about a month and a half), and I have mostly specialized in English and Chinese entries. Now, I'm asking this because you seem to be a well-seasoned editor who knows a lot.

How come some entries (such as 倗) have separate sections for Mandarin and Cantonese, while others (such as 馹) group the pronunciations of all Chinese dialects under one section called Chinese with a different template? Is it like this way on purpose? According to Wiktionary policy, which way is considered more "correct"?

And why do entries for Simplified Chinese characters (such as 驲) redirect you to their corresponding Traditional counterparts, and not the other way around? If you ask me, it would make more sense if Simplified Chinese were the "main" variety of Chinese on Wiktionary, just as they are on Baike, the Xinhua Dictionary, and most other resources. And yes, I am aware that resources from Taiwan and Hong Kong use Traditional Chinese, but neither of these are officially recognized as countries by the United Nations, while the People's Republic of China is. I'm not asking you to change the way things work here (duh!), but I just wonder if you happen to know the rationale behind this.

Finally, in the IPA of most entries (the bulk of my edits consist of adding IPA pronunciation guides to entries that lack them), if not all of them, how come unstressed syllables are not separated by periods (.)? The way I learned IPA, if a syllable does not have a stress mark, you need to use a period. It's kind of inconsistent when some entries like aphid have the periods, while others like federal don't.

Thanks for answering my questions. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @WikiWarrior9919, I'm glad you have these questions!

About separate lects vs. unified Chinese, our goal is definitely all unified Chinese. Many of the single character entries still have separate entries for Mandarin and Cantonese as a vestige of the past. These need to be converted into our current unified Chinese format. You may want to look at WT:AZH for guidelines on the format of Chinese entries.

The rationale for choosing traditional as the main entry is mostly motivated by technicalities. Simplified characters are more likely to correspond to more than one traditional character than the other way around (e.g. 云 for 雲 and 云; 发 for 發 and 髮; 台 for 臺, 颱, 檯 and 台). Using traditional characters as the main script makes it easier for conversions like in {{zh-l}} and {{zh-x}}. Also, I think it works better for our setting, where we are documenting Chinese across time and space.

As for the question about IPA, I've always wondered that as well. I'm not too active on English entries, so you may want to consult with other more active English editors. I think the main reason for this is that nothing is lost without syllabification. Also, English syllabification might be tricky because depending on your analysis, there may be ambisyllabic sounds, which means the period can't really go anywhere for it to be correct.

Hope this answers your questions, and happy editing! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Fair. But what guidelines for Chinese? WT:ZH is a red link. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@WikiWarrior9919: Sorry, that's the wrong link. It should be WT:AZH. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

勢力 and 邪惡

Hi Justin. Is there a way to make sure an apostrophe displays for the pinyin of 邪惡 in the usage example for these two entries? "xiéè" should be "xié'è". ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I know it's counterintuitive, but the solution is simple - don't put in the apostrophe because it will know to put it in if necessary. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: No problem :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

他朝君體也相同

Could you check the Cantonese here? I had to fix the pinyin for 朝 and 相, so there may be problems with the Canto as well. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Looks good to me. The editor who made the page is Cantonese-speaking, so that's probably why the Mandarin might be off. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary Policy

What is standing Wiktionary policy on my edit? ([1]) That's what I want to know. If I violated the rule, show me the rule. If I didn't violate the rules as they stood at the time I made the edit, then I request that my post be allowed to stand and I request an apology for reverting material which was within the boundaries of the rules of the website. If the post violated those boundaries as they existed at the time of the post in any way, then of course it is reasonable to remove it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: While there's no official Wiktionary policy on whether votes can be cast after a vote is closed (AFAICT), casting a vote on a closed vote is inherently problematic. First, the vote has no effect - it doesn't do anything official to the vote. Second, people who look at the vote later would get confused why the results differ from the actual votes (if they don't look carefully at the edit history). Third, it goes against the very fact that it is a closed vote - a closed vote, by definition, is a vote in which you cannot cast a vote. If you still have questions, @Surjection will also be willing to give you additional (and probably better) answers when they're around. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC) User:Surjection

I understand your reasoning. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Thanks for understanding, and sorry for being a little harsh on you upon your return! Welcome back and happy editing! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am glad you are here keeping things under control. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

標準地名 否

Hello again, sorry for already causing problems. What does this wording mean? If this wording means that this is not necessarily a standard name, then I think I would want to back off of forcing the spelling Bai'e on the people in that village. It is possible that they may not want to use that version, and this is not considered a standard translation according to my understanding. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think it's saying that it's not standard in the sense that it has not been officially adopted by the "直轄市、縣（市）政府", in this case, the government of Yilan. That being said, if I understand this correctly, translations of place names in Taiwan are governed by 標準地名審議及地名管理辦法, 標準地名譯寫準則 and 中文譯音使用原則. The name given by 地名資訊服務網 should be following these guidelines; for example, the apostrophe is prescribed by 標準地名譯寫準則. 地名資訊服務網 is also a government website, which while not necessarily giving the "standard", is still a valid source. Also, we're not necessarily "forcing the spelling ... on the people" by simply providing a possible translation for it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia project, the names of locations are given according to what the people in the area use. I don't want to assume what the local government and village residents want. In Taipei, New Taipei City, Keelung, Chiayi, Tainan and Kaohsiung, some areas specifically and consistently use non-Hanyu Pinyin forms or forms derived from Hanyu Pinyin that don't use the 隔音符號 in the English naming. Those forms are divergent from what's in this database (I would guess). I don't want someone to come to me one day and say to me "we didn't want that". There's endless names we can make up for locations, but the only one that counts is what they want, and I just don't know what they want yet. Hence I left it blank. But I understand your reasoning. I think the central government's statements are a suggestion to the local area, not a mandate from on high. That's what I have gathered so far. I wish to be maximally respectful of those people but at the same time informative to the readers in terms of giving them the hypothetically reasonable Mainland-style Hanyu Pinyin form and the hypothetical simplified Chinese forms because Wiktionary is a dictionary including Mainland China material. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Is "the names of locations are given according to what the people in the area use" necessarily official policy at Wikipedia? What do you do when there isn't an English name that people use in the area? Of course, names that the people of a given community would prefer should be preferred, but other names aren't necessarily invalid. Hanyu Pinyin, though developed in Mainland China, has now been adopted in Taiwan - I understand some Taiwanese are still against that, but Hanyu Pinyin is not exclusive to Mainland (as you put it above). And if you would check out 地名資訊服務網, "Taipei, New Taipei City, Keelung, Chiayi, Tainan and Kaohsiung" aren't in Hanyu Pinyin. They're not blindly making everything Hanyu Pinyin. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You do not have any source that says that Bai'e is the official translated form for the name of that village, right? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hanyu Pinyin has now been adopted in Taiwan, but have all the rules of Mainland China Hanyu Pinyin been adopted? If they have, then why do we see this: 漢語拼音 bái é. Should be bái'é if everything were according to Mainland China's Hanyu Pinyin rules. There's not a single 隔音符號 in jianbian & chongbian guoyu. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Could it be that the situation is more complicated than in Mainland China? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan local govs have their own flags, don't abide by the national standard spellings etc. People's names are romanized with Wade-Giles and other methods. They will let us know specifically what they want when they want us to. Many areas have English versions of their local gov websites. I'm just saying wait a moment until there's more clarity about what the area is thinking. It could be that they desperately want the outside world to know them as Bai'e, but that may also be a mistaken assumption. We will know when they say specifically. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, these databases of material we are talking about are just hypotheticals waiting for potential implementation. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: You're fussing over something that needs not fussing over. Putting Bai'e as a gloss for 白鵝 doesn't imply it's the "official" English name for that village. It's just a valid English name suggested by 地名資訊服務網, which is a perfectly reliable source, regardless of the official status of the names that it gives. Sure, the situation is much more complicated than in Mainland China, but that doesn't mean Bai'e is not a valid English name. If we're talking about an actual English entry, this discussion should continue, but if it's just a gloss, there's no need to fuss over it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to try not to get myself re-banned on my first day back! haha~ You do what you think is right on this one man. Thanks for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Hlai

Hi! This is just to let you know, as you've added mentions of Proto-Hlai terms to some entries, that I changd the code from "lic-pro" to "qfa-lic-pro" to fit the standard naming scheme (the original code was probably my error, I don't recall), pursuant to the second half of this discussion. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: I thought if the protolanguage code is derived from an existed ISO code, we don't need to put the family code in front, cf. tai-pro for Proto-Tai. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If the protolanguage code is derived from an ISO family code, then yes. But "lic" is not a family code but rather a language code. (Right?) - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: I see, that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

做愛/造愛

Your reversion over Wiktionary article on 做愛／做爱 (zuò'ài) was not correct. The word 造愛 has been used as variant of 做愛 in Cantonese.[2][3]【香港粵語慣用語研究】，11.3　異聲同義. In addition, 做 is used often as 'do' in Cantonese but not 'make', so 造 is used instead. --142.150.48.163 02:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@142.150.48.163: Alright, thanks for these links. I've made some changes to the page to make it clear that 造愛 is only used for Cantonese. Also, I'm not sure why you've been removing spaces in your edits - please leave them there because of WT:NORM. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

虎井蜜

Hello again- does 虎井蜜 have anything to do with the island 虎井嶼? Almost certainly does, right? Anyway, I couldn't find it on zh.wiki. If there was some kind of connection drawn between the island and the tomato, I would add it to the new Hujing Island page I made for Asian Month. This [4] is all I could find on Google after a brief search. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think it probably does have to do with 虎井嶼, but a word can't really tell the full story. From what I can tell, the name 虎井蜜 is only restricted to the Penghu Islands, specifically Magong. I'm not sure why the Magong people call it 虎井蜜, though. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

閹人

I'm currently getting this lua error: Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'LONG LIVE THE CCHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY DOWN WITH FALUN GGONG. FUERDAI ON WHEELS' not found. Obviously someone is vandalizing. Can you help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wade–Giles

Hi Justin,

How much effort is to enable Wade–Giles romanisations in the expanded mode? We've got all less popular, limited geographically and less known Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Tongyong Pinyin but not Wade-Giles, which is really helpful for historical borrowings from Chinese. Are you able to add it? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: There are still issues that are yet to be solved with W-G. One particularly annoying thing about W-G is that it is not one-to-one with pinyin. Pinyin e could be o or ê depending on the word. And it may take some time to work about other issues that there may still be. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Do you think it's a good idea to allow a manual input for WJ? It may beneficial for various proper nouns. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this addition is critical to the success of the dictionary in the long run. If we don't give the readers Wade Giles, the dictionary will remain the 烏煙瘴氣 rag-tag pile of junk Wyang believed it to be. I will figure out how to do it one day, but if you want to beat me to it, please do. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think I have the skills to work on the tech. solution here but I would contribute if there is an effort - there could be some joint effort, e.g. make test cases, check what's missing. BTW corner cases could be left untransformed with an automated flag (category) to check auto or add Wade-Giles where it's missing. It could be the case that the data should be taken from somewhere or attention required for all or certain entries. Compare this with Russian stress accents - it's either a person's input or import from a dictionary or both. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

走踔

Would you mind adding the Min Nan pronunciation here when you get the chance? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: See Talk:走踔. Also, I'd advise you not to make Min Nan entries based on synonym lists. There are often nuances that don't directly translate. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will refrain from doing that in the future. Cheers! ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

囡仔

Hey- I wanted to let you know that I reported the mismatching bopomofo & hanyu pinyin to the [5]- I told them a friend pointed it out to me. I also found three other errors in Chongbian Guoyu that they have fixed (and one correction they rejected). They sent me a formal letter via email. Counting score, I now have about six successful corrections and I think two misfires, all thanks to Wiktionary. Thanks for your great work here. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I also reported it, and they also gave me a letter via email. (I'm not sure if I sent it first or you did.) They still haven't dealt with the nān vs. nán (ROC 88 Shenyinbiao) issue, though, but they said they're going to tell the editors to look into it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

So much to do! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

筆畫

Hi Justin, when you get time would you mind specifying which sense this Min Nan synonym is referring to? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Min Nan entries with ……

I don't know if you noticed that your changes to Module:nan-pron have caused module errors in several entries with ellipses. I have my doubts as to whether we should even have this sort of entry, but that's not for me to decide. We just need to do something about the module errors- I leave it up to your judgment what that "something" should be. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for reminding me to check for errors after I make module edits! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

奔命

This has a module error in Module:nan-pron. It doesn't seemed to have developed the error until a day or two after your last edits to the module, but I don't see what else could have caused it. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Fixed. The reading phun-bēng should just have one tw,zz: in front of it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

zh-dial

Every time you focus on a word it's obvious that you put in huge amounts of effort, and I want to say that that's really cool. I wish I had the time/energy/resources to help out. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Haha, thanks for dropping by to show your appreciation! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

About 我自家

Can you give some reasons of deleting 我自家? Davidzdh (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Davidzdh: It's a clear WT:SOP. The discussion is still at WT:RFDN#我自家. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)