Open main menu

User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7

Actually I have no f--king idea. When I initially moved the text to the top, I noticed that the hyphen also changed to a fullwidth hyphen, but didn't catch "成". I don't know if it's my browser or what. —suzukaze (tc) 22:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Alright, good to know. Do you have some translator/conversion tool/script turned on? It's pretty weird for 姓 to change to 成. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
After thinking about it a bit I wonder if it was the Japanese IME that I have on all the time ( (sei) (sei)), but I'm not aware of any keystrokes that would do such things. —suzukaze (tc) 22:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's on Jiaoyubu Yitizi Zidian, I saw the references on it, I think the refs are OK, so I added it. Dokurrat (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I mean, if it's already a simplified form (jianhuazi), I don't think we need to add it as an alternative form. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, how should we deal with such a case? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: My opinion is, I think by adding it as a variant, It can be shown that this glyph is not a product of a spelling reform. It is not used in modern traditional Chinese, so a label obsolete may be used aside. Dokurrat (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Many glyphs were not really a product of a spelling reform, like 从 and 个. I think we can explain it in the glyph origin section. Wouldn't labelling it obsolete make it even more confusing? It's not obsolete since it's used in simplified Chinese and some people who write traditional Chinese also use it as a shorthand. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to include in {{{alt}}}, but I also understand that it might look weird. —suzukaze (tc) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think leaving it out is fine. If there is widespread before simplification, it can be mentioned in the simplified page. Wyang (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I'm curious, when a glyph is both simplified and variant, why do you wish the glyph not appear in alt forms? Dokurrat (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think a reason is that it's not a variant w.r.t. standard simplified characters. (BTW, you don't need to ping if it's on my talk page...) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I see. Maybe use a small symbol to show the glyph's status instead? Dokurrat (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I used ping-template again, LOL. Old habits die hard. Dokurrat (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: We could, but the symbol should have a tooltip explaining what it represents. We could also maybe kill two birds with one stone and include another symbol to indicate that the simplified character is not in Zibiao. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Dokurrat (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


If you don't think it is a valid variant form should Misspelling of 屎胐. be used?--2001:DA8:201:3512:9571:A083:6ECA:CAD9 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a real misspelling because it's mostly a product of Unicode. Many people are unaware of the two different codepoints. and are essentially the same graphically. A more obvious example is and 𠄞; they are graphically identical. In fact, Hanyu Da Zidian treats them as the same character with two different pronunciations. I would not say 二 is a variant of 𠄞 or 上. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, what's your take on this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm persuaded and think that a redirect suffices here (and in general, unless the variant Unicode form has other uses, e.g. ). I bet Suzukaze-c is going to say something along the lines of ... Wyang (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think ~月出 should be a hard redirect to ~肉出. —suzukaze (tc) 05:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I just don't see where is the glyph 光. Dokurrat (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: If you remove the three circles (晶) and the three lines on the side (彡), you get 光. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Have you seen glyph like that in oracle bone script? What I only have seen is the glyph like one at right. Dokurrat (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: It's not the oracle bone script that we're looking at. It's the bronze script. Take a look at some of these forms. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Oh, I'm being careless. Thank you. Dokurrat (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


Justin ― Would you fancy becoming an admin? You have been around for quite some time, have impressive knowledge on the varieties of Chinese (and others), and have consistently been doing great work on creating, maintaining and patrolling Chinese entries and dealing with RFV/RFD/etc. It would be a mistake not to have you as admin. Wyang (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: After a bit of consideration, I think that'd be cool :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Woo hoo! It's here: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-09/User:Justinrleung for admin. Please accept the nomination on the page, Justin. Wyang (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thanks for your nomination! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Not just cool, but official: you're now an admin. Congratulations! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: thanks! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Glyph of 膥

Because the Unicode G glyph (is this the way it is called?) of 膥 is not 未成肉, which caused me done such reaction. I've no idea whether it is a error made by Unicode or can be traced earlier. Dokurrat (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And I think it may be useful to point out that the glyph issue, but maybe what I've written is kind of luōsuo. Dokurrat (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I've got no idea why the G glyph has 末 instead of 未. The Unihan Database says that it comes from GB/T 15564-1995, which is a character set for Hong Kong characters. I'm pretty sure there's nothing special about it other than a mistake. See this discussion for more details. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Thank you! I've added info to the 膥 entry, and please review what I've written there if you have time. Dokurrat (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I've made it a little more specific so that people actually know what the unexpected shape is. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Roger! Dokurrat (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Knock knock, Where did you get the pronunciation jīng? Dokurrat (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: It comes from 教育部異體字字典, which cites 集韻 for this reading. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Oh! Thank you. I should've been more careful. Dokurrat (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: No worries! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


Can I put Peng'im in Thailand-MN-T because some words have no Han form? --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80: Ideally not. If you don't know the hanzi, you can write it as a comment on the same line. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that I don't know. I know that it has no written from. For example, บะหมี่ (bamii, [肉]面) บะจ่าง (bacaang, [肉]粽) บะช่อ (bachor, [肉]?) ซาลาเปา (saalaapao, ??包), there is no word for บะ (ba) ช่อ (chor) and ซาลา (saalaa). Equivalent characters of the same meaning also pronounce different: 肉 reads as nêg8 in Teochew against ba. (If I am correct.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: บะ is also written as (bhah4, as you can see in the entry). ช่อ is written as (per Thai Wikipedia). ซาลาเปา seems to be written as 沙拉包 per Google search results. That's why you can't be sure there's no written form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
About ซาลาเปา, I think 沙拉包 is back transcription to Mandarin. Is it legal to put? --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: I think so. Taiwanese Min Nan and Hakka has similar problems with Japanese loans. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


Can you please check the Cantonese pronunciation of this entry if you are willing to? Dokurrat (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No ming4 jyun6 ? 😲 Dokurrat (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat I've only heard of ming4 wun4, the most common pronunciation, I believe; the Multi-function Chinese Character Database also says this is the recommended reading, and jyun4 is its variant. I'm unsure about jyun6. I'll see if I can find some more info from other sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Thank you ! As for me, I only have see this word in written form but neither have I heard it nor have I spoken it, in Mandarin. But I have a wild guess that the Mandarin pronunciation ming2yuan4 is a very unpopular pronunciation, if not a only-seen-in-dictionary one... Dokurrat (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Now that I think of it, I believe I've only heard of it in the TVB drama called 名媛望族. 朗文中文新詞典 does say it's pronounced as jyun6 when used in this compound, so I've added it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Thank you ! Dokurrat (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: No problem! I'm not sure if you can see Youtube, but I did find some clips from China (I think) that use míngyuán ([1] [2] [3]), which would support your guess. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Roger ! Dokurrat (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Untintentional Rollbacks

I see you've discovered the problem with having more links crammed into the same space. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. I'll admit, though, that I still do that occasionally, myself, when my eyes are tired or my slow computer takes too much time to draw the page and things move at the last moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Yes, this is especially problematic if I use the desktop version on my phone. I guess I'll have to be more patient as the page loads. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese characters that are not listed in Tongyong Guifan Hanzi Biao

Previous discussion: User talk:Dokurrat#通用规范汉字表 and "standard" simplified forms

@Wyang. I think these characters should be treated in a different manner from official simplified characters. What's your opinion? Dokurrat (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat I don't have a strong opinion on this. It may be useful, but it will take a lot of effort to maintain, especially if we implement it and the Ministry of Education produces another edition of this in a few years' time... Wyang (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang, Dokurrat: Ideally, we should include information like the info given at Japanese kanji entries (Grade n “Kyōiku” kanji, “Jinmeiyō” kanji, etc.), so for Chinese, that would mean Tongyong Guifan Hanzi Biao for PRC, List of Graphemes of Commonly-Used Chinese Characters for HK and Changyong Guozi Biaozhun Ziti Biao, Ci Changyong Guozi Biaozhun Ziti Biao and Hanyong Guozi Biaozhun Ziti Biao for ROC. I don't think this needs to be dealt with in multi-character entries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to meddle, but I've been posting a request to add HSK levels to the respective entries. I have not received any reply, but I am still excited about the lexicographic improvement it would entail. I hope it can be done with some piece of code. I am willing to help as long as I can. Thanx --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: I think the relevant editors have already seen your requests. You don't need to post everywhere. I'm not sure if we have the time right now to implement it. @Wyang, did you want to implement this? And we might want implement the other character lists as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the time to look into it; there is still a large backlog of recent changes to Chinese entries to be checked. Wyang (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang How to descibe these characters? I am to edit Module:zh-see to add a new non_lemma_type. "extended simplified"? "leitui simplified"? Or sth else? Dokurrat (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Both names don't quite ring the bell for me. Simplified Chinese characters uses "simplified by analogy" to render 类推简化. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Et vous? Dokurrat (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat À mon avis, "simplified by analogy" may not be obvious enough that the character is not in Tongyong Guifan Hanzi Biao. I can't think of anything better though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


Please check this term.--2001:DA8:201:3512:71C8:70A3:5C73:D8D 04:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Does Cantonese have naan4 hing1 naan4 dai6 and naan6 hing1 naan6 dai6 to go with the two Mandarin readings? I also wonder if the two pronunciations should be split by etymology, and if the {{zh-forms}} should be duplicated to show different glosses and literal translations. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dine2016: Yeah, naan6 hing1 naan6 dai6 would go with nànxiongnàndì, and it could also be split by etymology. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dine2016: Actually, I'm not sure if the two pronunciations have different etymologies. @Wyang, do you think the second pronunciation is based on the first pronunciation? (See this) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the etymology should be split to make it clearer; pronunciation 2 may have been inspired by the existing Pronunciation 1. Btw, I recently bumped into 漢學文典, an amazing website which has a much bigger collection of ancient texts than ctext. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Your Wishlist

Have you ever added Wiktionary:Requested entries (Chinese) to your watchlist? I ask that because of this one term that I came across as the name of a poem by Li Hongzhi. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: Yes, it's on my watchlist. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: ... and it seems like you're fascinated with Falun Gong — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I don't have to be jūnì in the translation of zh-x. But I think I could still use "alcoholic drink" in definition of sense. What's your opinion about handling this sense? Dokurrat (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: If you really want to use "alcoholic beverage" in the definition, that's ok, I guess. It's just kinda cumbersome. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I just see sense 3 in entry alcohol. I think I can use "alcohol". Dokurrat (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: 也可以的 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Done! Tee-hee. Dokurrat (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: hehehe lol — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


If you are willing to, would you like to check the Cantonese pronunciations of  ? Mêrci. Dokurrat (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Mêrci ! Et bonne journé. Dokurrat (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: De rien! (what's with the weird spelling anyway...) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

about 化工

Hi there, I don't mean to push any of my ideas, I just want to know that, if I only want to describe a related entry as "abbreviation" but not "synonym", how should I format it?
The reason I want to make this distinction is that, 化工 can mean 化學工業 and 化學工程 pretty much equally, with 化學工程 slightly more frequent, I believe; in such scenario, we can't just say 化工 is synonym of any either of the two; it's just an abbreviation. Labelling it as synonym is simply irresponsible to readers, especially Chinese learners. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@SzMithrandir: It is a synonym, which doesn't mean it has to be used identically. 化工 is a synonym of both 化學工業 and 化學工程. If you want to emphasize that it's an abbreviation, we can put {{q|abbreviation}} in front. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're over-simplifying things. In my understanding, if A is synonym of both B and C, then B and C should be synonyms of each other as well. But obviously chemical engineering 化學工程 and chemical industry 化學工業 are not synonyms; how are you gonna rationalize that?
As you suggested, just now I looked up Wiktionary:Entry layout; indeed, "abbreviation" is not designated. But that's not an excuse for labelling fake synonyms. Could we use instead "Related terms"? Or maybe just avoid using any sections, and put (abbrev.) 化工 in the definition directly? -- SzMithrandir (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@SzMithrandir: I'm not oversimplifying. Synonyms do not have to be completely interchangeable; it's not like "=" in math. If A is a synonym of B and C, it just means A can mean the same thing as B and A can mean the same thing as C, but B doesn't have to mean the same thing as C because A could have more than one meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

O well, since you say so, I'll just leave it as is. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

uncreated zh-dials

Create these? Remove these? —suzukaze (tc) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: They should all be created. Thanks! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Cool :) —suzukaze (tc) 06:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Re. no捽


no速是用華語擬音寫成的非正式用字,建議加註Borrowed from no捽 與 Taiwanese Mandarin。用例:

另外我傾向拼這音為第九調的根據:youtube 短片 url 結尾為 JTPK1BwX09Y 的廣告 0'08" 處(感冒就軟𩛩𩛩 no 捽。 / Kám-mō͘ tō nńg-kauh-kauh nő͘-sut.)。雖然這是偏泉州腔沒有錯。--Yoxem (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yoxem: 如果確實是有引申義的話,我想應該把本義與引申義分開,可是如果本義的用法沒有實際的根據(WT:ATTEST),建議刪掉本義的definition,將本義搬到etymology。
「no速」這種寫法確實是根據華語而擬音,可是很多台語的異用字都是這樣的,尤其是外來語,就像「麥克」、「阿莎力」,我覺得應該可以當作alternative form,當然也能保留descendants那一段。反而「no捽」這種寫法好像不夠常用,google:"no捽" 只有29項結果,應該不能通過WT:CFI


— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Should this be moved to Module:zh/data/dial-pron/肴? I know 肴 is the main glyph in Taiwan, but I don't know where to look up the current glyph policy in Hong Kong. Dokurrat (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: From my experience, both 餚 and 肴 are common in traditional Chinese. I don't think 肴 is necessarily the main glyph in Taiwan. In Hong Kong, 肴 is considered a variant of 餚 per this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I don't think listed 肴 as a variant of 餚; I think left 肴 undefined. (Which gives me an impression that as if 肴 is more or less obsolete.) Dokurrat (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Search for 餚. 肴 is listed as 異體字. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I see it. Dokurrat (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Justinrleung/Archive 7".