Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Justinrleung



Could you help me with this Hakka entry when you have the time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


w:zh:Category:女性人物 says: 中文词汇“女人”为“妇女”、“女性”的俗称,“女性人物”不能简称为“女人”。百科全书分类中使用口语化的“女人”来对女性(妇女)称谓不雅

I don't know how to indicate this.--Zcreator alt (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt: I think the usage note there should suffice. To me, it's not so 口语化 as to being colloquial; Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian do not indicate it as colloquial either. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Would it be possible for you to take a look at this character? The senses "newly hatched chicken" and "twin" are listed under different fanqie spellings in Guangyun and therefore different pronunciations in Hanyu Da Zidian, but they are under the same pronunciation in 漢語多功能字庫 and the Mandarin, Min Nan, and Cross-Straits dictionary on MOEdict. In addition, some Cantonese and Hakka senses might be missing. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dine2016: While it's true that Guangyun has different pronunciations for different senses, it seems like they have been conflated in many dictionaries. That's why there is only one pronunciation in most of those sources you've mentioned. The Min Nan dictionary doesn't actually include a pronunciation for the "twin" sense; the definitions are just a copy of the ones from Guoyu Cidian because the actual dictionary only gives the pronunciation and doesn't include definitions. I am not aware of any dialect that uses 僆 for the "twin" sense anymore. The Hakka word is the same word as "chick"; in most dialects where this word is retained, it has a specialized meaning of "female chick that has not laid eggs". The Cantonese leng1 is debatable; its pronunciation doesn't correspond well with the other dialects or the Guangyun fanqie. leng1 is most often written as 𡃁. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey Justin, I'm getting: "The dial-syn page 「喝茶」 does not yet exist. Create the data page and the map!" Do you know what's up? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: That's the message that comes up if a synonym data module doesn't exist yet. I'm still in the progress of compiling it, so hang on there. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your hard work. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: It's done. Thanks for your work as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Could you check the Cantonese usage here when you get time? Does it really mean "ridicule"? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I don't think that's what it means. It should be the same as the Mandarin senses. Where did you get that sense? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw it listed as a synonym for that very sense, but I can't remember which entry it was. If it's wrong, please make the necessary changes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Ok, I can't find where you got this from either. I've removed the sense from the entry and removed the word from the thesaurus. BTW, I don't know if some of those words fit into the thesaurus, e.g. 開玩笑 (not "mock" but "joke"). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, some of the synonyms might be too far from the original sense. I need to think on this too. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey again- I have noticed that you sometimes seem to delete the "alt1=亻" or alt1= whatever that I add to a glyph origin. (for instance with ). This time you said, "already in seal script". Do you mean to say that 亻did not exist in seal script, and therefore 亻 should not be included in the glyph origin? Thanks for your help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The current form descends from the seal script form. Since the compound is formed in the seal script, I don't think we should include 亻 in the glyph origin. I think we should only use alt for characters formed in the clerical script or the regular script. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I get it. I will keep that in mind from now on. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


How would 温 be considered a variant traditional character? Moedict redirects to 溫. Obviously in calligraphy 溫 is often written as 温, but surely we shouldn't include it simply for that reason? Because then we would have to include hundreds of such cases... ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic It's the standard in Hong Kong according to the List of Graphemes of Commonly-Used Chinese Characters. Search for 温 here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Zdic doesn't display that info for either 温 or 溫 under its 字源字形. Do we have any examples "in the wild"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I wouldn't expect to find this kind of info at zdic. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3]. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

風水Variant Pronunciations ProblemEdit

Hello again: I have encountered a problem inputting the variant Mandarin pronunciations for the term 風水. In the Xiandai Hanyu Cidian Ed 7, 風水 is a word with a toneless final syllable variant. In Taiwan's, 風水 is a qingsheng word 轻声词. How can I include both of these on the 風水 page? I tried to make an edit, but I can only see the Mainland pronunciation at this point. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I've fixed it. Just a few reminders:
  • You need to put all the pronunciations first before you put the other parameters (e.g. |m=fēngshuǐ,fēngshui,tl=y instead of |m=fēngshuǐ,tl=y,fēngshui)
  • Do not rely on 重編國語辭典 for standard pronunciations in Taiwan; it has a section in the appendix called 《重編國語辭典修訂本》與《國語一字多音審訂表》取音差異表, so it does not follow the current standards in Taiwan. Use 國語辭典簡編本 instead. See question 3 here.
  • I think we should be following 现代汉语规范词典 as the main Mainland standard on pronunciation rather than 现代汉语词典.
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I will use 國語辭典簡編本 as the Taiwan standard, thanks. As for the mainland standard, in my understanding, the Putonghua Proficiency Test manuals specifically use the Xiandai Hanyu Cidian as the pronunciation standard and specifically do not use Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian as standard. In my understanding the "Guifan hierarchy" is 1)Shenyinbiao 2)Xinhua Zidian and 3)Xiandai Hanyu Cidian. I will gather more evidence about this question and get back to you. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Ah, interesting. I hope to hear back from you soon about this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about/learning about this problem. Here's one of the words affected by the difference between the two dictionaries: 安生. How would you handle this word? I added notes about the differences between the two dictionaries on the talk page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: The biggest difference I've found between the two dictionaries is how they deal with qingsheng. That's why I want to know which of the two dictionaries is more authoritative. Do you have more evidence that says that puts 现代汉语词典 as the standard over 现代汉语规范词典? @Wyang, Dokurrat, Tooironic, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know anything about linguistic politics. But I'll use my common sense:
  • Is Putonghua more like French and Spanish (regulated by authority) or English (driven by social usage)? I'd say it's the first one, as there is law (中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法), and actual linguistic regulations (e.g. 通用规范汉字表 made by Jiaoyubu and Guojia Yuyan Wenzi Gongzuo Weiyuanhui).
  • So, Are 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室, the editor of 现代汉语词典, and 李行健, the chief editor of 现代汉语规范词典, governmental organizations? No, I don't think so. I think their (现代汉语词典 and 现代汉语规范词典) authority-ness comes from somewhere else, which I don't know exactly what it is. Maybe it's reputation. Voila. Dokurrat (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
中国社会科学院 do belongs to Guowuyuan though... But I currently did't see how much ability/authority of involving itself into making lingustic regulations it has... Dokurrat (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm still working on the problem. Here's one piece of evidence that could technically mean nothing. A test-prep book prepared by the 国家语言文字工作委员会普通话培训测试中心 and published by the Commercial Press in 2004[1] includes a list of 10,460 Chinese words with their pinyin spellings that are explicitly derived from the Xiandai Hanyu Cidian. Further, the whole -can be qingsheng or can be the original tone- thing, to me a mark of the Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, is included in the book at all times, whereas Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian seems to avoid allowing for two pronunciations for one meaning. It was from this foundation, combined with the fact that all my teachers recommended the Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, that I made the leap that Xiandai Hanyu Cidian might be or might have been authoritative. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's another systematic difference between the two dictionaries that I just realized: when Xiandai Hanyu Cidian Ed 7 gives pinyin for a character describing a proper noun, the pinyin starts with a capital letter. But in Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian Ed 2 & Ed 3, there are seemingly no capital letters in pinyin. Examples: 巴 Bā XDHYCD Ed 7 pg 17; XDHYGFCD bā Ed 3 pg 16 (Ed 2 pg 16). If this non-capitalization extends to geographical terms, then XDHYGFCD Ed 3 may potentially conflict with Zhengcifa:《汉语拼音正词法基本规则》条.2012. pp.8. 汉语地名中的专名和通名,分写,每一分写部分的首字母大写. (I don't have convenient access to a full copy of either XDHYGFCD Ed 2 or Ed 3 yet.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I got my copy of the XDHYGFCD Ed 3 (2014). The XDHYGFCD seemingly doesn't capitalize the first letter of the Hanyu Pinyin for place names. Example: XDHYGFCD Ed 3 page 1317 洪洞 hóngtóng (whereas XDHYCD Ed 7 page 1315 洪洞 Hóngtóng) Talk:洪洞. I conclude that they seem to be pointedly not capitalizing stuff- let me know if you want more examples. Pointing out the obvious, the XDHYGFCD Ed 3 does it differently from the way the automatic settings on Wiktionary work: Wiktionary automatically capitalizes the first letter in the pinyin for all proper noun entries. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As a person whose account is called 'Geographyinitiative', you can imagine that this is something I am interested in: should the proper noun entries with capitalized Mandarin hanyu pinyin be written with the lowercase letter instead? Is there some "guifan" out there that says it should be that way? Should the capitalization to the Mandarin pinyin here (劉集&diff=49336783) be reversed? idk bro --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
We're following 正词法 on capitalization generally speaking, but there may be some discrepancies. Obvious proper nouns (like place names) are generally capitalized. Editors are a bit inconsistent when dealing with things like language names; most editors are not that concerned about this. One thing to note is that we generally do not (re)capitalize if the word can be a common noun or a proper noun depending on context. These are just orthographic rules, and we are not as rigid about that. What's important is which pronunciation is the standard in Mainland China. From your evidence, it does seem like 现汉 is generally more accepted. I'd also like to know if HSK uses 现汉 for its pronunciation standard. What's weird to me is that there isn't an absolute authority on pronunciation of words, which would make it ambiguous when promoting standard Chinese. If we do take one of the two dictionaries as the standard, how should we deal with the pronunciations that differ between the two? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lots to say. According to my memory, the pinyin I have seen given for the HSK vocabulary lists uses the xianhan pronunciation for 嗯 which is ng . The xianhan guitar pronunciation is eng. Ping me and I will send link later . There are six main differences between the xianhan and xianhan guifan that I have noticed so far 1 slightly different definitions 2 different example sentences 3 different handling of qingsheng 4 completely different pronunciations of some yuqici 5 no bopomofo zhuyin 6 no capital letters in pinyin Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Xiandai Hanyu Cidian vs. Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian: 嗯

  • On the '新HSK(六级)(5000)'page of the '新汉语水平考试(HSK)词汇(2012年修订版)' ('HSK-2012.xls') spreadsheet provided at, the character follows 能源 (néngyuán) and is followed by 拟定 (nǐdìng).
  • This could only be the case if the pinyin used in alphabetizing the list was based on a standard in which 嗯 was to be read as 'ng'.
  • The 现代汉语规范词典第二版 (from 2010) page 348 and the 现代汉语规范词典第三版 (from 2014) page 348 gives the readings éng, ěng, and èng for the character 嗯. There is no indication given that there are other readings.
  • 现代汉语规范词典第三版 (from 2014) page 955 does not have any characters listed with a pronunciation 'ng'. Further, 嗯 is not found among the characters with the pronunciation 'en' on page 348, and page 939 does not have any characters listed with a pronunciation 'n'.
  • I only have 现代汉语规范词典第二版 (from 2010) to page 889. 嗯 is not found among the characters with the pronunciation 'en' on page 348.
  • The 现代汉语词典第五版 (from 2005) pages 990-991 (and page 974) , the 现代汉语词典第六版 (from 2012) page 942 (and page 926) and the 现代汉语词典第六版 (from 2016) page 947 (and page 931) give 嗯 six pronunciations: ńg, ń, ňg, ň, ǹg, and ǹ.
  • These six pronunciations are also found on page 1653 of 辞海第六版(from 2009). 嗯 is not found among the characters with the pronunciation 'en' on pages 537-539, and page 539 does not have any characters listed with a pronunciation 'eng'. Page 1623 does not have any characters listed with a pronunciation 'n'.
  • The 普通话异读词审因表 and it's 初稿s seem not to explicitly touch on the pronunciation of 嗯.
  • The 现代汉语词典第五版 (from 2005) pages 358-9, the 现代汉语词典第六版 (from 2012) page 342 and the 现代汉语词典第六版 (from 2016) page 343 don't have 嗯 listed among the characters pronounced 'en' or 'eng'.
  • Therefore, at least in the case of 嗯, the HSK vocabulary list did not follow the pinyin given in the 现代汉语规范词典 and did follow the pinyin given in a standard that is consistent with 现代汉语词典 and 辞海. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The above analysis was part of an attempt to find out "if HSK uses 现汉 for its pronunciation standard." I think there may be a printed list out there somewhere with the characters and the matching pinyin. I have seen such a list for the BCT Business Chinese Test- it was in the back of a book that had one model test of the BCT.
"What's weird to me is that there isn't an absolute authority on pronunciation of words, which would make it ambiguous when promoting standard Chinese." I just think it's a complex problem.
"If we do take one of the two dictionaries as the standard, how should we deal with the pronunciations that differ between the two?" I would say add all variant pronunciations and then add on detailed notes. In the case of 嗯, I count 13 pronunciations: ńg, ń, ňg, ň, ǹg, ǹ, éng, ěng, èng, én, ěn, èn and en. I would say add them all with clear usage notes etc and then let the reader sort it out. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Xiandai Hanyu Cidian was used in the compilation of a list of official pronunciations for the Putonghua Proficiency Test- Page 43: "本表参照{...}中国社会科学院语言研究所编辑的《现代汉语词典》(1996年7月修订第三版)编制。" 普通话水平测试实施纲要. Putonghua Shuiping Ceshi Shishi Gangyao. (First Edition), 北京. Beijing: 商务印书馆., 2004, →ISBN, page 43

Name for "temple block"Edit

Any idea what the translation for "temple block" would be in Chinese?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: I only know of 木魚, which AFAICT is a particular kind of temple block. I'm not sure if there's a general term of such instruments. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about incorrectly writing 'Proper Noun' instead of 'Proper noun'Edit

Sorry about incorrectly writing 'Proper Noun' instead of 'Proper noun'! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: No worries! I made that mistake when I first started too. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


Why do you think this form is incorrect? Dokurrat (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat Well, that's weird. I thought it was incorrect, but it's actually correct. I thought 著 should be 着 unless read as zhù, but I guess I was wrong. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 :) Dokurrat (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a weird situation. I just found the following text in definition of 著 (zhuo2) in XDHYGFCD: “著 zhuo2 ‘着 (zhuo2)’的本字。现在除在‘执著’一词中外,‘著’一般写作‘着’。” And I dunno this comment was based on what. Usage frequency in their database? Legal regulation? Or something else? I dunno. Dokurrat (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: No idea how they come up with their recommendations. Xian-Han uses 执着 as the main form, but XDHYGFCD uses 执著 as the main form... another one of these Xian-Han vs. XDHYGFCD moments... — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is one of such moments again... Dokurrat (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideas for Wiktionary 1Pleco-Wiktionary 2 Automatically add words to Compounds sectionEdit

Thanks for your time and work over the past few months.

I have some thoughts I would like to share somewhere, but I forgot where that place is--What's the name of the tea house or something where you can discuss these kinds of ideas?

1 I asked Mike Love about adding Wiktionary into Pleco somehow, but he didn't respond to that part of my email. If Wiktionary could be added into Pleco somehow, this part of Wiktionary would probably grow it's reader and editor base significantly. It would be a big thing for Chinese language studiers if every person learning or studying Chinese could contribute to Wiktionary via Pleco.

2 Apparently, the "Compounds" box on every character's page requires you to manually add every compound to the list of compounds. (Like this:)



Isn't there a better way to add compounds to the Compounds boxes than to make some user manually add compounds to the relevant character pages? Can't it be set up so that any new word added to Wiktionary that contains a given Chinese character is automatically added to the relevant compound box ?

I hope to become a long-term contributor to Wiktionary. If I have to add every new geographical proper noun to the corresponding component characters' compounds boxes, I'm fine with that. But if it could be done automatically, then why not? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: If the word is in Guoyu Cidian or Hanyu Da Cidian, then they can be added automatically using {{subst:zh-new/der}} (with |big=1 if it's in Hanyu Da Cidian). I'm not aware of any other way of automatically adding to the compounds/derived terms list. Maybe we can have a bot that does this, @Wyang, Suzukaze-c? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: BTW, you can bring this to WT:Beer parlour, which is for discussing issues that matter across entries. WT:Tea room is for individual words. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: About Pleco, I'm not so sure about that. Wiktionary is constantly updating, so unless Pleco keeps updating with weekly dumps or something, it's gonna be outdated very quickly. Also, editors probably won't be able to edit content on Pleco, which doesn't have that kind of functionality yet AFAIK. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
This is partially (multisyllables) tracked here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/zh-forms/compounds not mentioned in derived terms on the component pages. I haven't done content parsing with the bot using Pywikipedia before, so I'm not quite sure; a less intelligent method is to extract all the compound and derived info and analyse from those data pages. Another way is a js-based gadget that detects and automatically adds (upon click) the 詞 to its component page(s). Wyang (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative:: Hi. It would be great if Pleco included other Chinese lects as well. It only features Mandarin and Cantonese at the moment. Some topolects have a pretty good coverage at Wiktionary now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: @Wyang: @Atitarev: Thanks for your responses. Basically what I'm wanting is not even close to possible yet. I will save these responses and think about it. Sorry for wasting your time --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Zhuang and BouyeiEdit

Hey there. It's awesome to see that you're so active in Zhuang and Bouyei.

You caught me mid-edit on the Zhuang chopstick entry. I was just fixing the formatting for the etym section and adding an attention template when I got the conflict message. But you were already there fixing it!

Should I flag all my new Zhuang entries with the attention template or will you find them anyway?

I'm also very interested in Chinese minority languages. And I'm interested in Tai-Kadai languages. I've travelled in Zhuang areas of China but without meeting any speakers. I did meet one Bouyei speaker working in a backpacker hostel in Nanning. I've also been in the Bouyei area of Vietnam but also without meeting any speakers.

I didn't find any Zhuang or Bouyei dictionaries when I was in China but I did buy two Lue dictionaries in Xishuangbanna.

I'm no expert though which is why I mostly only make stub entries. I speak very basic tourist survival Thai and Lao.

By the way, I've added lots of translation requests for Zhuang. Mostly for core vocabulary or words where the Thai and Lao words are different.

Great work. See you around. Pop gun mai! — hippietrail (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hippietrail: Haha, I'm no expert either, but there are some good resources online for Zhuang, like Sawloih Cuengh-Gun and the Translation Bureau's Zhuang dictionaries. I've also found a copy of 布依汉词典, a decent dictionary for Bouyei, as well as the Zhuang–Chinese–English Dictionary, a useful dictionary for standard Zhuang. If you're unsure about entries, go ahead and flag them with the attention template so that I don't miss anything. We're definitely missing lots of good stuff for Zhuang and Bouyei here, so I'm glad you're interested in them as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

挑剔 (Pinyin): tiāoti, tiāotī, tiāotìEdit

The tiāotì reading is labelled as a 'common misreading'.

(Standard Chinese, common misreading)+

Pinyin: tiāotì

Isn't it better to say 'common variant reading' or maybe 'common variant reading, considered as a misreading' or something else? idk

xiandai hanyu guifan cidian ed 3 pg 1287 specifically says that tì is a misreading: "不读tí或tì。"

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

moved to Tea house (more appropriate venue for this kind of question) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello again! The page for the simplified version of Ouhai currently looks like this:

For pronunciation and definitions of 瓯海 – see 甌海 (“[[w:Ouhai District”).

This is wrong: it should look like this:

For pronunciation and definitions of 瓯海 – see 甌海 (“Ouhai”).

How can I achieve this result? I don't know where to look or who to ask, and last time I asked at the tea room, it was you who responded anyway. I can't imagine what the code to achieve the correct result would be. Thanks for any help! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Technically you can ask at WT:Grease pit, but @Wyang or @Zcreator alt may be able to help. It has to do with this ([^\n}|]+) capture pattern not allowing |, but I don't know a good way to fix it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
What about having the replace_gloss function only replace template names like {{place|zh to {{extract-t and creating the helper templates like {{extract-t}} to extract the appropriate parameters? (Hadn't tried this before, though.) --Dine2016 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Fixed it. (Templates cannot be invoked in modules either, if their parameters are unknown, AFAIK.) Wyang (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I will remember that you have to write it like |t=Ouhai --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: @Justinrleung: Hello again--- on the page, a similar type of problem is popping up which I don't know how to solve:
"For pronunciation and definitions of 仓 – see 倉 (“granary; tr=-; etc.”)."
should be something like "For pronunciation and definitions of 仓 – see 倉 (“granary; etc.”)." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


The reason I added the abbreviation to the Wenzhou Etymology section was because Hubei's Etymology section mentions 鄂. Should 鄂 be deleted from Hubei's Etymology section? (I have no opinion either way.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Yes, it should be. It's entirely irrelevant in the etymology section. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The relationship between and Edit

Hey- in the past day, I've already run into two situations which were somewhat similar to the relationship between and : the relationship and 𥄨 as well as with the relationship between and (where the first character of the two is the guifan hanzi and the second character is simultaneously an yitizi and an erjianzi). Is there a way to modify the wording that allowed for a mention of the second round simplification on the 瞅 and 答 pages so that the second round simplification can be mentioned on the 燉 and 炖 pages? From my perspective, I've already done like fifty second round simplifications based on this list (except for and - see talk pages), and to not add the information about the second round simplification to the 燉 and 炖 pages seems extremely unsystematic. I don't really know exactly what would be a good solution here. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proof 炖 was selected as the simplified form of 燉 in the second round: on page 2 near the middle of the second column from the left of the (1)不作简化偏旁的简化字 part of the 第一表 list in the Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft), you can see the character 炖 paired with 燉 (the characters are ordered in alphabetical order by Mandarin Pinyin). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I'm not really sure, but I think mentioning it as simplified would be enough. I think it's one of the 二簡字 that were kept. @Dokurrat, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's another overlapping situation situation that I just dealt with: and 忿. An 二简字 and a 通假字 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative, Justinrleung: I'm not sure. I think, for 燉-炖 case, I may go like this:
trad. */*
simp. *
See notes below

燉 was officially simplified as 炖 in second-round simp. characters. Although this regulation is not official anymore, 燉 of cooking senses is virtually de facto unused in simp. Chinese.

Dokurrat (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Yeah, this is probably a good solution. It's easier to explain the situation with a usage note. However, the explanation can be reworked. The current standard 通用规范汉字表 doesn't recognize 炖 as a simplification of 燉 but implies that 炖 is the standard form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, Maybe just add your last sentense you just said to it would be fine. Dokurrat (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
No problems here. I will go try it right now. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: @Justinrleung: 橘-桔 is another situation similar *but different from* the 燉-炖 case- I made some attempted edits to the relevant pages based on the 燉-炖 changes. Let me know what you think. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


This character is often mispronounced wǔ right? If so we should probably include this variant pronunciation. We do include shǐ for 室, among others. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I don't really know if it's common enough. 现代汉语规范词典 does proscribe , which may imply that some people read it as such, probably due to 有边读边; it also proscribes shǐ for 室. Shǐ for 室 is documented in 汉语方音字汇 for Beijing, so it seems legit (for lack of a better word) to include it; 汉语方音字汇 doesn't have info on 吾. @Wyang, Dokurrat, what do you guys think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have access to Google right now, if I did I'd search the pinyin on Google Books. I think you might get some hits, especially in older texts. The book I'm reading now about 古義 and 今義 lists the pinyin of 支吾 as zhīwǔ, and I've always thought 吾 was read as wǔ, though that means very little. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Reply Justinrleung: I don't know, as I personally haven't encountered wǔ for 吾, if my memory is reliable. Dokurrat (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Likewise, I haven't heard wu3 before either, including in 支吾. The similar 悟 in 孫悟空 is mispronounced by most people as third tone, though. Wyang (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I hear pronounced as "xue3" often, when in fact the 新华字典 only has "xie3" or "xue4". Do you happen to know which pronunciation is most common? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: Not sure, but xue3 is definitely common enough to be included - in fact it's been included for a long time. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@justinrleung: I know it's included. However I would like to know which of the three pronunciations are most common. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
@Johnny Shiz: Seems like xue3 is the most common in compounds. See the answer by MoonLight.Q here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

沒有; etcEdit

Hello again: I recently added the tl=y to one of the pronunciations of 沒有, meaning that on page 866 of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian Ed 7 (and shiyongben, 5, & 6), 没有 is given the pronunciation méi•yǒu. At the same time, the on the 國語辭典 page, 沒有 is given the pronunciation ㄇㄟˊ ㄧㄡˇ ( Therefore, I split the pronunciations into two- méiyǒu,tl=y 1nb=standard in Mainland and méiyǒu for 2nb=standard in Taiwan. My fear is, this edit looks goofy and very likely will be edited away at some point by someone who sees no difference between méi•yǒu and ㄇㄟˊ ㄧㄡˇ and that other editors (possibly including yourself) will support the change because at first glance, the Pronunciation box on the 沒有 page looks so awkward:


(Pinyin): méiyǒu, méiyǒu

(Zhuyin): ㄇㄟˊ ㄧㄡˇ, ㄇㄟˊ ㄧㄡˇ

Is there anyway to hint to readers that the first méiyǒu may be a little different from the second méiyǒu? What do you think of the whole tl=y situation overall? Also, are there any other specific things that I have done that you are still somewhat dissatisfied with? Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I don't think it's necessary to split it like that. The tl=y is there because it's an optional toneless variant. In the Taiwanese standard, there is no 重次輕 type of thing, and in real life, the Taiwanese rarely use the toneless variant. We can just have |m=méiyǒu,tl=y and that should be fine. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense, I will try to do other similar 重次輕 words I encounter in this way too. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


I have added some interesting information for readers, including a reference, about the change in the pronunciation of . If this is good formatting, I will work on doing all the characters in all the 审音表 lists in this manner over the course of the coming months. (Also, I implemented the change you thougt best to the 没有 page. I'm not 100% happy with it, but it's okay by me.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: It looks good at , but what do you mean by "all the characters in all the 审音表 lists"? I don't think all the characters need this information. Can you give me some examples of the characters that would be treated similarly? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's an example of one that I just did: . --There were three lists: one in 1957, one in 1959 and one in 1962. In 1985, the three lists were unified and changed slightly. In 2016, a new list based on the 1985 list came out with small changes. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: What was the pronunciation before liǎn? Was it liàn? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't be certain whether it had a different pronunciation before that list- it's slightly beyond the realm of things I know how to check at this point. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: If we don't know what the pronunciation was, how can we say it "changed"? That's why I was worried about putting this kind of information for every character in all the 审音表 lists. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought that since Taiwan has lian4 as the reading, it might be interesting to understand some of the underpinnings of the lian3 pronunciation. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Well, both readings are not unexpected given the two pronunciations given in Guangyun. Taiwan's pronunciation isn't necessarily the "original" reading, so I don't really know why you bring up the Taiwanese reading. Taiwan has its own pronunciation standardization (國語一字多音審訂表), too. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Never heard of it! I wish that there were a dictionary that would tell you where the 國語一字多音審訂表 AND the mainland shenyinbiaos carried out shenyin. That's kind of what I'm getting at here. But I understand that adding this info may be seen as clutter or too tangential. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: There's 中華語文大辭典 (aka 兩岸詞典), but sometimes it gets the pronunciations wrong, especially for words with qingsheng. It's nevertheless still useful as a reference. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I found that list you mentioned. Very cool. Yeah- I use the 兩岸詞典 dictionary in Pleco. My idea is: let the readers of this dictionary know more about the specifics of the shenyin that has been carried out: let them know about the different shenyin that have been carried out. That would make this dictionary even better than the 兩岸詞典, which just tells you the opinion they have about the difference between the two standards rather than telling you about the shenyin lists. Let readers know about the instances of the shenyin. Could be cool. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I've removed the entire etymology section at for now. Firstly, it's not really an etymology but a bit of the history of the character's standard pronunciation. However, since these standards are not everything - these pronunciations must have existed before these standards came out. From what I can see, this character's history isn't really all that interesting; it's just that the two ministries of education chose different pronunciations. IMO, I think we probably just need to set up an about page for Mandarin that would list the standards we are basing our labels on. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Also, 國語一字多音審訂表(初稿) is not yet official. The current standard is still 國語一字多音審訂表 from ROC 88 (1999). That's why what you wrote was highly misleading. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I totally understand your concerns and revert. I apologize about the misleading edits to 敛- at present, I don't understand the subject well enough to make contributions in that area. "IMO, I think we probably just need to set up an about page for Mandarin"--- that would be interesting to me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


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)


Does such a character exist on Unicode? Because it is listed as a variant in the 新华字典 of . If so, I would like a page created for it. Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See .--Zcreator alt (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

湯湯#Japanese comparandaEdit

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 /ɕɨɐŋ ɕɨɐŋ/ reading shown had no /t/ at all. Granted, that was before the recent spate of edits to majorly expand the ZH content.  :)

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)

@Eirikr: 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 /ɕɨɐŋ ɕɨɐŋ/ 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...) | c=› } 05:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I think the etymon for Japanese is 蕩蕩. The semantics and pronunciation match pretty well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I've reworked 湯湯#Japanese and added 蕩蕩#Japanese accordingly. Much appreciated! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

JA alt forms header orderingEdit

Heya, looking at this change, 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)

@Eirikr: 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...) | c=› } 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)
@Eirikr: (Notifying Eirikr, Wyang, TAKASUGI Shinji, Nibiko, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Dine2016, Poketalker, Cnilep, Britannic124, Fumiko Take): 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...) | c=› } 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 {{ja-def}}, 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 Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/March#Proposed_change_to_Japanese_entry_format_-_using_kana_as_the_main_entry_form 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)
@Eirikr: 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...) | c=› } 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 / うつ.
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 湯湯 and 蕩蕩, 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 あばく or うまい 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)


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)

@Johnny Shiz: I've already added it in etymology 3 for now; haven't you seen? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@justinrleung: Really? Well... oops.... Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


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)

@Geographyinitiative: 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...) | c=› } 02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Phono-semantic compoundEdit

@Tooironic, Wyang, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c, 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)

@Geographyinitiative: 1) It does not need to be capitalized. 2) It might be SoP. The definition at phonosemantic seems to suffice. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 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)
@Geographyinitiative: No worries! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Please check Cantonese - here mentions this form but I can not find pou4 in .--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt: Looks good. pou4 is the vernacular reading of . I'll add it to . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator alt: Actually I'm not sure about the fish sense. I've expanded the entry with more info. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


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)

@Lo Ximiendo: 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...) | c=› } 17:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
And the Min Bei transliteration webpage gives "chǔ" for . --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: 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...) | c=› } 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Index of regional term differences in WikipediaEdit

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)

@Mar vin kaiser: 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...) | c=› } 02:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Please check the Cantonese here when you get time. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I'm not familiar with this word, but the Cantonese should be the same for both pronunciations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There's another Cantonese reading here that needs checking when you're free: 忽閃. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: 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...) | c=› } 05:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Justinrleung".