Open main menu
will often not reply to pings immediately for the time being —Suzukaze-c 07:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Japanese linking template

Chinese Postal romanizations

Hey- I saw that you created the Chinkiang page recently, and I was wondering what you thought of my recent spate of postal romanization edits, both in Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Thanks for any pointers. If you look at my contributions, I started doing these edits on the 29th of January. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe you should be using {{qualifier|postal romanization}} instead of {{sense|postal romabization}}, but otherwise I have no particular comments ^^ (also, I might have time to fix them myself later) —Suzukaze-c 03:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just made that change on these pages: Gaoyou Zhenjiang. I will begin changing them all over to 'qualifier' later today. Please let me know if you develop any other concerns or have suggestions. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: 結婚指輪

Hello. I wanted to reach out to you, re: 結婚指輪. I fixed it. Thank you. Johnnysama (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


IPs shouldn't be removing {{rfv}}- that should be done by whoever closes and/or archives it on rfv. That's my only objection. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Mm, I see that it was indeed premature, but User:荒巻モロゾフ is not an IP, and IMO a wholesale rollback is a bit aggressive, since many improvements were made as well. —Suzukaze-c 05:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not IP. I wonce wrote in Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#彼女 that "Japanese custom don't treat ship as female." But I found lemmatized example of that in the dictionary, and checked the source of a quote in it, and wrote and translated the relevant part. Do we need someone who closes the rfv?--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

some thoughts on Japanese

  • Japanese entries usually have multiple etymology sections, and {{ja-new}} can only help create the first. The other etymology sections must be created manually because {{ja-new}} hardcodes ==Japanese== and L3 POS headers. What about adding another parameter to make the template generate ===Etymology n=== and L4 POS headers instead?
  • From the reader's perspective, reading Japanese entries is like reading a txt or rtf file—an ocean of text and locating the information you want requires a great effort. The introduction of {{ja-spellings}} added visual guides on the right side and was the first step in making the structure of the page clearer. I think we can take the following additional steps:
    • Avoid a mixture of bitmap and ClearType-optimized font—change the Japanese font to something like Meiryo UI for Windows.
    • As an etymology section consists of “etymology + pronunciation + POS + inflection table”, format the pronunciation template and the inflection table as little boxes (like the Chinese {{zh-pron}} and {{zh-dial}}) to make the page 灰白相間、層次分明.

--Dine2016 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It sounds reasonable to me. —Suzukaze-c 03:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on User:Suzukaze-c/template consistency. Here are some of my additions:

  • |rom=|tr=
  • Some form-of templates such as {{alternative form of}} supports both |t= and |3= while some such as {{short for}} only supports |3=.
  • For most languages, one parameter is enough to enter a word (e.g. {{m|en|English}}), but for Japanese, two parameters are often needed (e.g. {{ja-r|日本語|^にほんご}}). This leaves different ways to place the slots of those two parameters. For example, {{ja-compound|日本|^にほん|語|ご}} groups parameters by word, while {{ja-vp|見る|見える|みる|みえる|c=見せる|ck=みせる}} groups parameters by orthography. This is why I proposed a newer citation format of Japanese words KANJI:KANA (inspired by the format of {{zh-l}}) to make the syntax of Japanese templates more consistent and more predictable: {{ja-compound|日本:^にほん|語:ご}} and {{ja-vp|見る:みる|見える:みえる|c=見せる:みせる}}, and more in line with the general norm of one slot per word: {{compound|en|Japan|ese}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Added!
  • Indeed. Editing templates to add support for |t= would also be possible, but we really need consistency, at any rate, and sometimes one is too lazy…
  • Ah, now I like it even more :) I also wonder how we could make things nicer for Korean hanja and Vietnamese han tu. The French Wiktionary has a |tradi= parameter that is used for Chinese and Korean. (oddly, it seems to be present only in fr:Template:trad, and not fr:Template:lien… but maybe they also need to think about consistency!)
Suzukaze-c 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Lua error in Module:zh at line 404: [fill in the blank] is not a recognized language.

I'm not sure exactly what went wrong with your edits to this module, but something did. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Nothing went wrong, actually. The entries were always formatted wrong, but the code didn't check. —Suzukaze-c 04:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It's all fixed now, which was my only point in bringing it up- whatever works! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

lemma spelling of Japanese entries

  • Do you think wago compounds like 引き摺る and 見積もり should be lemmatized at the kana spelling? I think that, on one hand, they have a greater degree of variety in spelling (either part can be written in full kana, and okurigana for nouns and verb infinitives can be omitted for brevity) so they ought to be lemmatized at the kana spelling; on the other hand, they have a relatively fixed structure compared with single wago terms, making the choice of kanji narrower and the potential spellings less competing, so they can be lemmatized at the most common (or most regular) kanji spellings with no problem.
  • Kyūjitai is a tough problem not only because (1) wago terms involve different abstract kanji (みる→観・覧) and the same abstract kanji may have different forms (観→観・觀、覧→覧・覽), creating a two-tier hierarchy (sometimes three if you take Unicode codepoints into account) and (2) the poor font support (unless you resort to a Korean font, which is closer to the Kangxi printing style, or you resort to pictures, which have to be mass imported from GlyphWiki to Wikimedia Commons), but also because we have different degrees of oldness. For example, is still an extended shinjitai with no official status (according to ‎KevinUp). Should we list spellings such as 灯籠 as perfectly shinjitai or half-shin-half-kyū, given the existence of 灯篭?
  • Do you think {{ja-spellings}} should implicitly make the page title one of its arguments—that is, should みる read {{ja-spellings|h=みる|見る|観る|…}} or {{ja-spellings|みる|h=みる|見る|観る|…}}? The advantage of the former is brevity, and it's also what {{zh-forms}} do (using the page title as |t=), and the advantage of the latter is that you won't break things while moving entries.

--Dine2016 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I thought that 和語 compounds might be lemmatized at the kana spelling for consistency with non-compound 和語 terms. For example, the spelling of 引き摺る is surely rarer than 引きずる.
  • We could make shinjitai the canonical kanji spelling for simplicity, regardless of historical state. We also ought to include extended shinjitai if it's common, perhaps with a short {{qualifier}} noting that it might not be official.
  • I like the former. How often would we move pages in such a way that it {{{1}}} would need to be fixed?
Suzukaze-c 20:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ya, I too thought that the direction going forward was to lemmatize 和語 at the kana spellings (although I admit to a certain amount of inertia in that regard). Has that consensus (or at least, what I'd thought was consensus) changed in the past couple months? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Hi. Welcome back! Progress has been slow in reaching a consensus on the new Japanese entry format. As Suzukaze puts it, "it would be a massive change, and we can't decide on the details, which is why discussions don't last" or "I think that part of the problem is that our current setup is 'alright' and Good Enough™, and other editors don't feel an urgent need to change." I have a lot of ideas about the new Japanese entry format (some of them are here), but I'm too lazyソシオフォビック to push for changes. --Dine2016 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dine2016: It feels like we have been discussing things in multiple places, and I have been having trouble keeping track. Could we compile a single list of past discussions related to entry/template reform? —Suzukaze-c 04:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably, but there are many unsolved issues (such as kanji and kana spellings, inflected forms, and how to present Middle / Old Japanese or whether to use unified Japanese). I'll compile a proposal to show to other Japanese editors sometime. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the most urgent issue at the moment is to switch existing usages of {{ja-r}} to the inline format. The vertical metric configuration of Meiryo leaves horrible gaps between kanji and kana, and the matching is sometimes wrong:  () (のう) (kinō). But even with these issues fixed, (1) the kanji is still too big compared with Japanese terms without ruby, causing disharmony, and the kana too small (as Eirikr reports), making uncomfortable reading. Also, Wyang said that templates like {{ja-r}} taking up too much vertical space would discourage editors to add more examples, synonyms, etc. (2) When citing wago, {{ja-r}} leaves no way to link to the kana spelling, put kana before kanji, or have multiple kanji spellings, etc., which is incompatible with the kana-centric approach.

As for entry/policy reform, I actually don't mind lemmatizing wago terms (especially those with stable kanji spellings) at kanji spellings if it's not because doing so would require both {{ja-spellings}} and {{ja-kanjitab}} which will take up too much space. This issue ({{ja-spellings}} + {{ja-kanjitab}} taking up too much space) also troubles kanji entries. I think the long-term solution is to combine the two templates into a single morphology-showing template like {{zh-forms}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dine2016: (Well, if you want to combine {{ja-spellings}} and {{ja-kanjitab}}, perhaps now is a good time to think of it... —Suzukaze-c 20:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC))


Hi. Can you change the Japanese font to Meiryo or Meiryo UI for Windows?

  • The Chinese font has been changed to Microsoft JhengHei/YaHei and the Korean font has been changed to Malgun Gothic. Japanese is falling behind.
  • MS PGothic has only one weight, which means that bolding (the b element) has to be achieved by an increase of font size, causing disharmony:
    • 分的な太 (dadaism?)
    • コード switching (inconsistent weight and size).
  • If we change the Japanese font to a ClearType-optimized font, we can implement the b element by a true increase in font weight:
    • 分的な太
    • コード switching

--Dine2016 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think many usages of {{ja-r}} should be changed to an inline format. For example, the "See also" section of 気が重い should read

instead of

What do you think? --Dine2016 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the second one if other editors prefer it as well. Perhaps adding a second form within the parentheses needs to be incorporated into Module:links itself, as I mentioned elsewhere. This would allow us to use templates like {{der}} "normally" without need for ...|-}} {{ja-l/new|..., and might be useful for languages like Korean as well (when adding hanja). —Suzukaze-c 04:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • One additional consideration -- bolded kanji can become hard to read. I'd actually thought that was why the templates used enlargement instead of bolding. I think any use of bold for kanji should be well-tested to ensure that the bolded characters are still legible. Turning things into blobs of color isn't very helpful. :)
Also, FWIW, the furigana in the lower "instead of" examples are so small I can't read them (laptop running Windows 10). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for your reply. I have a bold idea: What about changing the behavior of {{ja-r}} to output the inline format by default? This way we don't need to mass-update entries in the mainspace.
By the way, my personal implementation of the new {{ja-l}} (inline citation template) supports the following functions: (1) putting the kana before kanji, or having multiple kanji spellings. (2) Automatic fetching of reading when given only kanji. Therefore {{ja-l|わぎも|吾妹|我妹|[[my]] [[dear]] (woman)|lit=my little sister}} gives わぎも (吾妹, 我妹, wagimo, “my dear (woman)”, literally “my little sister”), and {{ja-l|国際音声記号}} gives 国際音声記号 (こくさいおんせいきごう, Kokusai Onsei Kigō), but {{ja-l|東京}} gives 東京 [Reading?] because there are multiple readings. I think {{ja-r}} can be made to work like this without breaking things. Please see also #some thoughts on Japanese above for the new format KANJI:KANA in addition to KANJI|KANA. --Dine2016 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't add . in zh-x 求助

Hey- just like I couldn't add a space into a Chinese example text a while back (四十埠), now I can't add a '.' into a Chinese example text. It's on the 地牛翻身 page- a '5.6' earthquake was written with a . Tshiánn-mn̄g, is there a way to fix this that you know of? To-siā. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I used more HTML entities (.), tricking {{zh-x}} into not seeing a period, but still rendering as a period. nei5 gok3 dak1 jyu4 ho4? —Suzukaze-c 00:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hó! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The 将棋 entry

Re: the 将棋 page: I restored the pronunciation with the right hiragana for that word. My apologies, sometimes my mind tends to go on autopilot for some reason. Johnnysama (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Japanese rōmaji

Why are you changing the rōmaji definitions for the pages I am creating? The pages to which I declare the definition state the page as the proper rōmaji. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC).

See WT:AJA#Romaji entries. —Suzukaze-c 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

موُمِنَاهِي at 木乃伊


Did you mean مُومِنَاهِي(mūmināhī) with the fixed damma position? BTW, it's Arabic, not Persian, if this spelling is right. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps. I got it from this scan. You know more about Arabic spelling than I do. —Suzukaze-c 02:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks. It must be their mistake, they placed a damma over waw (2nd letter, which would give "-wu-") leaving the the first mim unmarked, which seems meaningless. I don't know Latin but I think they are using an Arabic word here. The Persian would be مومناهی (different last letter) and the damma (zamme) marker would be required if it's pronounced "mou-", not "mu-". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Why did you remove my usage example? It is not only illustrative of the word's usage, but also teaches children important things about Armenia's fauna. --Vahag (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ehh 🤷 —Suzukaze-c 15:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it better? Are you happy now? --Vahag (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
🤷 —Suzukaze-c 15:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Suzukaze-c".