User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 2

gāngcái

I think it's better to separate the variant from from the main forms. That way it's clear to the user what the main forms are. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic OK, but the variant forms should follow right after the main form. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have made the relevant changes now. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

仙桃, 合作者, 幹流, et al

Not a fan of the changes you made here. They do not conform to how synonyms are indicated in all the other languages on the English Wiktionary. Pinyin is not available, not to mention that it will also make it much messier once example sentences are added. I urge you to reconsider. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I knew someone would object to its usage. I was a bit hesitant at first, but just thought it would make synonyms be simpler. The template was @Wyang's idea. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It is the way of the future (lol). There is no justification for having to repeat the entire definition list in Synonyms and then in Antonyms and again in Derived terms (e.g. 象 (xiàng)). These see-also-type items are sense-specific and belong underneath the senses. The format is up for discussion, though. I made it link like {{zh-l}} now. Wyang (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have a discussion for the entire English Wiktionary instead of radically changing the system for the Chinese sections only. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This is quite a radical change that should only be implemented through vote, and across all languages. For now, I would implore you to restore the entries as they were before the change. (Personally, I don't mind repeating the synonym information - at least, until we have a better solution that does not involve confusing the synonyms and example sentences.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything is ruined by votes, where people (especially those who disagree with everything on Earth and have minimal involvement in the actual subject) voice their opinions simply because they are able to, and as a consequence no progress gets made. The drastic changes for Chinese entries on Wiktionary wouldn't have been possible if we as the Chinese editors did not form a united community to advocate for the changes that are best for the language. A lot of what we have as practices run contrary to the common formatting principles of Wiktionary, as we deem those poorly and inappropriately designed. Wyang (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang OK, but I think we at least need to have agreement within Chinese editors. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We need a radical new think on entry layouts. What I am having in mind is similar to the definition format outlined in User:DTLHS/export, where the definitions themselves are highlighted, and sense-specific info is put under the respective senses. Of course there will be no translations. Other ways to increase layering could be using a light beige colour for definitions (lines starting with #), slightly increasing the font for those lines, blockifying each ===Etymology #===, and using special formatting effects to make each see-also line distinct. Wyang (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

How do I get unblock on Wikipedia? I got banned b/c vandalism, but got indefinite ban by yamaguchi insted of just 24 hours. What can i do? — This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talk • contribs) at 21:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz Have you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:Appealing a block? I honestly don't have a lot of knowledge about this, so I hope these pages may help you. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Does not apply. Cannot edit own user page — This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talk • contribs) at 00:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC).

Then I have no idea. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

More Mindong! more Mindong!

Pls add more Mindong! Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As you can see on my user page, I don't speak Min Dong. I just copy and paste from Wikipedia, so that's all I can do. The only active user on Wiktionary who speaks Min Dong is @Wyang. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

不夜

I'm not very happy with my work on this entry. Any improvements are welcome. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I've done what I could. Do you think it's better? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks better. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

⿰⺼屮

just saying is this a real character — This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talk • contribs) at 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz Could you show me a reference for this character? I can't find anything about it. Also, in 祭, it seems quite obvious that it isn't 屮 but 又. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

盃

盃 is just a variant form right? AFAIK, in traditional and simplified alike, 杯 is usually used. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic You're right, but when it comes to trophy cups, 盃 is much more common. According to 國語辭典, "同「杯」。今獎杯的杯字多用「盃」。" — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering a few triads of characters

The triad of 娛/娯/娱: 娯 is not shinjitai of 娛 since 娛 is unsupported in JIS. JIS support is required for a character to be shinjitai. Eyesnore (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eyesnore, suzukaze-c Is that really a requirement? I don't know Japanese, so I can't say anything definitive about this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

TBH I find the whole shinjitai/kyujitai thing rather confusing and bizarre (like sometimes the JIS encodings introduced characters unofficially? and I also can't seem to find truly reputable sources for a complete list), but a quick search on the internet seems to suggest that 娛 is considered the kyuujitai of 娯 (ja:娯, [1]). —suzukaze (t・c) 21:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

干吗

干吗 is the simplified form of 幹嘛? Wouldn't that be 幹嗎? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic AFAIK, 幹嘛 is the usual traditional way and 干吗 is the usual simplified way. 干嘛 doesn't seem to be used as much in simplified Chinese. Also see 麼. Also, I think 幹嗎 has bad connotations in Taiwan (could be read as ma5 instead of the intended ma2). I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it though. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but they're different characters with different usages, not different forms. We would mislead the user without a usage note. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I was just following Chinese Linguipedia, which has 幹嗎, 幹嘛 and 幹麼 all mapping to 干吗. We should put some sort of usage note. I don't know what should be done in {{zh-forms}} though. @Wyang, suzukaze-c What do you think? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the ping didn't work... @Tooironic, Wyang, suzukaze-c — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't respond because I don't feel qualified to answer. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's ok then. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

These are two different words with different "correct" usages. I made some edits to them, but the layout for multiple etymologies looks horrible. Wyang (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang Thanks! It sorta looks bad, but it's more informative now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thx.

Thanks for the contribution on Talk:网. Can you pls reply to me on Talk:匸? — This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talk • contribs) at 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz You didn't have a question on that page, but I put my thoughts there. Now, about those Chinese character pages, please see my edits on all of the pages you created to make sure you're following the format. The numbers used in {{Han ref}} are just copy-paste from Unihan. I don't know what's so hard about it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

咖啡

My friends in Quanzhou pronounce it something like ge1bi1, is that significant? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic If you're writing that in pinyin, that should correspond to ko-pi in POJ or /kə³³ pi³³ ~ ko³³ pi³³/ in IPA. The IPA on the page doesn't reflect the tones for Quanzhou, which are significantly different from mainstream Taiwan, Xiamen and Zhangzhou. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. I've never learnt POJ before. Cheers! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

天生我才必有用

Surely 天生我才必有用 is the variant, not the main form? The original poem was written 天生我材必有用, and there are more hits on Baidu for this form. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I don't really know, but Guoyu Cidian and Chinese Linguipedia both use 天生我才必有用. There are more hits for 天生我材必有用 on Google, too. Do you know anything about this, @Wyang? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I was taught that 天生我材必有用 is the proper form, with the reason being this: [2]. Wyang (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic, Wyang I see... Weird that both Guoyu Cidian and Chinese Linguipedia are "wrong". I've reverted my edits. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

游牧

FYI, according to moedict, 游牧 is the traditional form, not the simplified form. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but the Japanese and Korean forms both use 遊牧, which made me think the main form would probably be 遊牧... Well, I've changed the main forms to 游牧 now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

紐約

Could you please check my etymology here? I'm not great at phonological terminology. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Curiously, in Hokkien it is pronounced IPA^(key): /niu⁴⁴ iɔk̚³²/, and in Hakka IPA^(key): ni̯u³¹ i̯ok̚², indicating that they may be the origin. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic, Kc kennylau It could also be some dialect of Cantonese, especially Taishanese, which was probably more common in the States than Hokkien or Hakka. In Taishanese, it's pronounced as /niu55 jiak5/. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Module:zh/data/dial-syn/%E4%B8%8D%E5%A5%BD%E6%84%8F%E6%80%9D&curid=5604708&diff=38679260&oldid=38678282

是按怎無去了「失禮」？ --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau 我感覺「失禮」佮華語的「不好意思」有一點仔無仝。我欲加添「對不起」一頁，共「失禮」囥佇遐可能會較適合。你感覺如何？ — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

就按照恁意思去做。毋過，我感覺「失禮」佮日語的「失礼します」是仝款的，而且佮英語的「excuse me」是仝款的…… --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau 我閣想一下，可能共「失禮」囥轉去「不好意思」彼頁嘛無問題的……「不好意思」佮「對不起」的意思其實誠近，予我淡薄仔混亂。 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

毋過「對不起」是汝犯錯的時陣講的，而「不好意思」是汝欲叫別人的時陣講的…… --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau 我共「失禮」囥轉去「不好意思」啦。毋過，你犯錯的時陣嘛會使講「不好意思」，是毋（比如，「不好意思，我碰到你了」）？ — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

其實汝佗位人？我感覺汝是香港人。 --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau 我喺加拿大出世成長嘅，爹哋媽咪都係香港人。你應該都係香港人，係咪？ — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

係。 --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Descendants

Isn't Descendants usually ===Descendants===? This seems to be how most entries are formatted. It make sense, right?, since the heading refers to term, and not any specific reading or meaning. (Re your changes at 發財.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I'm pretty sure it should be one level lower unless the descendants are for more than one part of speech. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. From a contributor's point of view, surely it would be less hassle to use ===Descendants===? Then we wouldn't have to spend time thinking about whether the descendants in question match up with the different sense and/or parts of speech. We would just put it at the bottom of the entry and be done with it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic Of course it's easier, but I'm not sure if that's what should be done. The same applies for derived terms. Currently {{zh-new}} gives four equal signs to derived terms. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I know what you mean for both Descendants and Derived terms. It's not really a big deal, but I'm just concerned that if we use four equal signs for these it will mean more work for editors that, in many cases, is not really necessary. It is also difficult sometimes to distinguish exactly which part of speech is being conjured in a given term. That being said, I can see the argument for it for entries like 電子. I suppose we should just play it by ear. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic 那我們就看著辦吧！ — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Let Me Be Surprised!" in Cantonese

I told Suzukaze-c this: I wish someone could write down the lyrics of the Cantonese dub for "Let Me Be Surprised" (and the lyrics of the Cantonese dub for "Let's Make Music Together"; you know, the Cantonese dub of the big-lipped alligator moment). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo I was trying to do this before you asked :) I'm not really sure about the names, but I hope I got most of the words correct. So here goes:

Charlie: 我喺邊啊？

Annabelle: 呢度係天堂嘅大門嚟啊。

Charlie: 天堂？！

Annabelle: 係啊，周星馳，你係會上天堂㗎，所有狗都同醜惡嘅人類唔同，隻隻都係天生善良，都會上天堂㗎。

Charlie: 啊，妳講得啱啊。

Annabelle: 這刻重新開始你足可以……

Charlie: 哎啊，好似歡樂天地咁好玩啊。

Annabelle: 能得到幸福快樂，現在是處身於蓬萊，令夢幻在永久將來，在這裡共你分享，從世間上來到此……

Charlie: 好嘢啊。

Annabelle: 現已告別而忘。

Charlie: 咩話？我係死者，我？

Annabelle: 係啊，你已經死咗㗎喇。

Charlie: 哎啊，真係估唔到啊，我畀人害死㗎？

Annabelle: 總之死亡冊度有你個名啦，我同你查下紀錄睇下先吓。

Charlie: 佢謀殺我！

Annabelle: 你喺度講乜嘢啊？

Charlie: 我仲未想死住㗎！你梗係搵錯人喇！我畀個衰人陷害㗎，佢用架車撞我。哈，如果要講起上嚟就長篇咯。我同佢返咗嚟……妳個老細喺唔喺度啊？我想求下佢放我返落去啊！

Annabelle: 你喺度隨便你鍾意做乜都得㗎！

Charlie: 妳搵錯對象喇！

Annabelle: 如果你喜歡嘅話，仲可以成日唱歌跳舞添！

Charlie: 哎啊，我陽壽未盡㗎喎！

Annabelle: 你錯喇，一切都係天註定，我哋乜嘢都知道嗮㗎。

Charlie: 哎啊，我係無端端畀佢害死㗎咋，我要搵波霸報仇啊。欸，時間囊嚟㗎，吓？

Annabelle: 隨便你點叫都好啦。呢隻錶就係你嘅生命。佢已經停咗喇。

Charlie: 哦，冇電咋嘛，妳送我返落去啦！

Annabelle: 送你返落去？唔得！邊個都唔準再返落去㗎。遞你隻手過嚟吖。

Charlie: 你要做乜嘢啊？

Annabelle: 打指模做個紀錄囉。你睇下，呢一本係生死冊嚟，記錄咗你嘅過去同未來㗎。

Charlie: 哦，係噉幾得意喎，吖認真奇妙吓！吖，妳係話你哋乜都知啊？

Annabelle: 噉當然係啦，我哋咩嘢都知道嗮㗎。

Charlie: 喔，呢度好靚啊。啲雲、啲草，樣樣都係咁靚。

Annabelle: 梗係啦，天堂係最靚咖嘛。

Charlie: 喔，係咩？真係㗎？哈哈哈。欸，妳鍾唔鍾意跳舞啊？妳唔好講畀我聽妳一早就知道我會請妳跳舞啊吓。

Annabelle: 好對唔住啊，我係咩嘢都知㗎。

Charlie: 唔，噉妳一定練過跳舞㗎喇，所以啲舞步咁純熟，成個舞后噉樣啊。嘿！

Annabelle: 哈哈，我而家有啲暈暈地啊！

Charlie: 呢度所有嘅嘢都係咁靚，樣樣四四正正，都係咁㨘鏡，但係噉樣先至弊啊。曾幻想過環遊各地，到從來不知嘅空間探險，咁奧妙又神秘，這樣才完美，生命原寶貴。

Charlie: 由晴天到風雪雲與霧已完全擺布，是過分呆板，不再美麗陶醉，不快活沒情趣，不如返落去。噢！真激氣！何故要上嚟？這裡太靜，既沒趣味，難再期待會令我痛快刺激。

Annabelle: 請將來依然依然要記住無窮險惡在塵世上，是沮喪而再沒其他。

Charlie: 不再逗留離去，我決定回去，從不愛偷竊，但還極卻需要，只留三秒鐘，我從此離開，我希望話別……

Annabelle: 星仔，你做乜嘢啊？

Charlie: 嘿嘿嘿，一陣妳咪知囉！

Annabelle: 你收埋啲咩嘢喺後便啊？

Charlie: 不要怪我……

Annabelle: 星仔，你唔好搞隻錶啦！

Charlie: 逃走！

Annabelle: 星仔！你唔想都返嚟㗎喇。

Now, I don't recall watching this movie, so I don't really know anything about the other song. Is there is link to that somewhere? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

well done

Just wanna say great work you're doing on the dialectal synonyms. Super, super useful! Please keep it up! Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation, @Tooironic! Keep up your great work too! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

references

Hello. I am a user from China and have a copy of 现代汉语词典. I'd like to know:

1. If I referred to it while creating an article like this, does the dictionary need to be cited? If so, what to put in the references?
2. I saw you adding Cantonese pronunciation to the 吖嗪 article. I have no knowledge of Cantonese pronunciation. Can it be generated by concatenating the Cantonese pronunciation of individual characters, or will this cause error sometimes? I'm thinking if the latter is the case, I would leave it to other editors like you.

Thanks. Dine2016 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dine2016, I'm glad you're interested in contributing to Wiktionary. From what I observe, we generally do not need to cite sources unless there's something peculiar. Rather, it's better to have citations from durable sources (e.g. web pages).

For Cantonese, concatenating the Cantonese pronunciation of individual characters is generally fine, but there are 多音字, so that might be a problem. A good resource is the Multi-function Chinese Character Database, which has good coverage of Cantonese pronunciations of Chinese characters with some contexts of where each pronunciation is used. I will also advise you to use {{zh-new}}, which will automatically generate Mandarin pronunciations and get the Cantonese, Hakka and Min Nan pronunciations if the word is available in our data. Hope this helps! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, what about importing sample sentences from Xiandai Hanyu Cidian? Will that constitute copyright violation? Dine2016 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

跨過

Please check the Min Nan here. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic It's fixed now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here's another lua that blew up: 解說. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  Temporarily fixed (there was a typo in 'seh' -> 'she'). Still needs to be assigned to dialects though. Wyang (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  And another: 公署. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)