User talk:Dokurrat

User talk:Dokurrat/Archive 1

---

deletion of derived terms

Why did you remove the derived terms from 中華 and 中華民國? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I don't think these terms comply with WT:CFI. Do you have any reasons for inclusions of them? Dokurrat (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right. Sorry for bothering you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: No problem. Dokurrat (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Difference between several templates

Hi, what's the difference between {{zh-alt-inline}}, {{zh-alt-lb}} and {{zh-also}}? When should we be using which template? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: There is no intentional difference between {{zh-alt-inline}} and {{zh-alt-lb}}. I was just exploring different layout options. I don't use {{zh-also}} (I think). Dokurrat (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Then we probably should stick to one of {{zh-alt-inline}} and {{zh-alt-lb}}. {{zh-also}} might have broader usages, so it doesn't have to be merged with the other two. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, KevinUp, which do you guys prefer? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first two, I am not sure. But I think that {{zh-also}} is too vague. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We should unify the display with other inline post-definition templates like {{zh-syn}}, and try to get a consensus for the usage of these. Wyang (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I've been using {{zh-alt-lb}} more often than {{zh-alt-inline}}, because I've always assumed that {{zh-alt-inline}} is the inverse statement of {{zh-alt-form}}. For example, 蜚 (fēi) is listed as 通 「飛」 in (deprecated template usage) 《漢語大字典》 while 蜚 (bèi) is listed as 同 「琲」 in (deprecated template usage) 《漢語大字典》 so I used {{zh-alt-form}} for Pronunciations 2 and 4 of 蜚 but I haven't actually added inverse statements containing {{zh-alt-inline}} to the entries for 飛 (fēi) and 琲 (bèi) because usage of {{zh-forms|alt=}} (mainly used for variant forms 異體字／异体字 (yìtǐzì), ie. characters with same meaning and pronunciation but different in appearance) would be more suitable compared to {{zh-alt-inline}}. Meanwhile, I would recommend using {{zh-alt-lb}} or {{zh-alt-form}} for situations that are much more delicate, as in 須／须 (xū), which has alternative forms 䇓／𰩧 (xū) and 𩓣 (xū) that can only be linked with the sense of "to wait" but not with the other meanings of 須; or 适 (kuò, guā) which has an alternative form 𨓈 that has the same sense of "swift" but does not have the sense of "surname" as 适. Technically, {{zh-alt-lb}} and {{zh-alt-inline}} are both the same but I find {{zh-alt-lb}} to be much neater compared to {{zh-alt-inline}} which can be easily confused with the variant forms listed under {{zh-forms|alt=}} Note also that although(deprecated template usage) 《漢語大字典》 mentions 蜚 (fēi) as 通 「飛」 , inverse statements such as "飛 has an alternative form (或體／或体 (huòtǐ)) of 蜚" is usually not taken note of in most Chinese dictionaries. Anyway, it is up to you whether you prefer {{zh-alt-lb}} or {{zh-alt-inline}}. KevinUp (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Pinyin for 得過

I agree that there is a problem with the example quotation I provided on the 腦炎 page. The 得 and the 過 in the example I added at 腦炎 are obviously not part of one word. However, I believe the pinyin for the example quotation should be written as 'déguo' and should not be written as 'dé guo'. The basis for my assertion is:

1) 汉语拼音正词法基本规则6.1.2.1 "动词与后面的动态助词“着”、“了”、“过”，连写。例如：{...}jìnxíngguo （进行过）"

2) 普通话水平测试实施纲要，2004 page 435: "Yǒu gè tā bízi de xiǎonánháir, yīn·wèi liǎng suì shí déguo nǎoyán, zhìlì shòusǔn, xuéxí qǐ·lái hěn chīlì."

Does what I am saying make sense? Is there anything that defeats what I'm saying here? I think there may be a way to remove the space between 'dé' and 'guo' in the pinyin while not combining 得 and 過 as a word in the Chinese text, but I don't remember what the trick is. Do you know where I can find a list of the 'modulating symbols' for the pinyin text of an example quotation? The ones I know now are ^ for adding capitalization to pinyin, . for adding a space between syllables and {} for giving a pinyin different from the one generated automatically by the system. Thanks for your help! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Roger. I've removed the space there. Dokurrat (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: See Template:zh-x#Tricks :) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of cited Ext. D character article readings

I'm just curious as to how citing zdic.net counts as "unattested" or "unverified" regarding the readings for CJKV single-charcter articles in Extension D that you removed? Bumm13 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bumm13: Because such claims made by zdic.net are unverified. No proof was found. Dokurrat (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I'm curious as to what makes you think zdic.net is less reliable than, say, a random IP editing one of the articles in the CJKV Extension ranges, such as 𬽡. You haven't given a real answer to my question. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bumm13: I've replied your question. I'll say it again. No proof was found for such zdic.net's claims. Dokurrat (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Good job on removing these claims. Keep up the good work. KevinUp (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bumm13: I think that zdic.net is not suitable as a primary source of reference because definitions provided often lack proper citations or references. When editing CJKV entries it is best to use references that are reliable, well-documented and attestable, such as those listed under the {{Han ref}} template. Other excellent work of references can also be found here: Wiktionary:About Chinese/references. For characters with vague origins we would need to refer back to the IRG (Ideographic Rapporteur Group), which submits prospective CJKV characters to the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2 working group for consideration/approval before the characters can be encoded by the Unicode consortium. Here is an example: [1]. I think it is good practice to list references for Chinese characters, especially those using the {{zh-see}} template to prevent IP users from adding unverified statements. KevinUp (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinyin for 好好先生

Hi, I don't think it should be hyphenated as hǎo-hǎo xiānsheng. See 5.4 in the Basic rules of the Chinese phonetic alphabet orthography. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

tl=y

I like what you did with 合同. Does that mean we are getting rid of 'tl=y'? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Definately no. I'm just doing this because the case 合同 is special. Dokurrat (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

撲稜蛾子

I'm pretty sure that it is pronounced pūlēng though, I might be wrong. Qhwans (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Qhwans: What makes you pretty sure that it is pronounced pūlēng? Dokurrat (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Well, my Beijing friend/cousin(s) say it that way. Moreover 百度 and 汉典 says so (I know, not reliable, that's why the "pretty sure"). Qhwans (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Qhwans: I see. Dokurrat (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

挎籃背心

Does this refer to a tank top? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yes, I guess I mis-defined this term. Dokurrat (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: My English is bad; are tank top and A-shirt the same? Dokurrat (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: As a native speaker of 'American', I can vouchsafe that I had never heard of this so-called "A-shirt" until I saw your post. I would classify it as a 'wife beater' if anything (based on the picture at the 'A-shirt' article). And is a 'wife beater' the same as a 'tank top'? Yes, it does look like they are the same, but the wife beater is usually white in color and is supposed to be worn under another shirt. It looks very macho if worn without a shirt over it. I'm thinking that a tank top is not macho unless worn by a body builder. However, 'wife beater' is such an ugly word signifying such an ugly underlying reality of our society that I wouldn't say it aloud at all- I might just call it an 'undershirt'. That's my feeling based on my life experience. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of A-shirt either. Undershirt is probably too general since it could have sleeves. I've heard of wifebeater, but I'd tend to say tank top or vest. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative, Justinrleung: I modified the entries 挎籃背心 and 跨欄背心. Dokurrat (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung It's currently not technically possible to add kuàlánrbèixīnr to these two entries? Or is it just I didn't figured out how? Dokurrat (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You can have er=2;4 to indicate where the erhua should go. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Ah, merci beaucoup! Dokurrat (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Pas de problème! BTW, are both forms equally as common? I think we should probably pick one be the main form if we can. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think 跨欄背心 is more common per Google results. Dokurrat (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Shé

I like the way you are thinking here, but I'm thinking that the pinyin form for any Chinese character could be capitalized given the correct situation. Should only characters that are proper nouns be included on capitalized Pinyin pages? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think what you said is true for English as well. Plain nouns are capitalized in book titles. Dokurrat (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm going to assume that this is the correct way to handle this type of situation. I wasn't sure at first. Love your work here! As for English spelling errors, don't worry too much; the standard English spellings are conventions imposed on us by assholes- English words are spelled however you please to spell them. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes in edits

Hi, I've been seeing some spelling mistakes in your edits, and yes, English is tough, so I'd recommend maybe installing some sort of spellcheck on your browser if you can. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Done. Merci. Dokurrat (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

膦軟

You'll notice there's a module error with the message "Zhuyin conversion unsuccessful: "卐ruan3". Are you using a valid Pinyin syllable? Is the text using a breve letter instead of a caron one?". In looking for what changed to caused the error, since the entry itself was last edited in 2016, I noticed that this edit removed references to "卐". My first-year (1987, to be precise) Mandarin gives me no clue as to what to do, but that module error has been sitting there for a couple of weeks, and somebody needs to fix it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I'm a tech dummie. @Wyang, Justinrleung Do you have any idea what's going on? Dokurrat (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Dokurrat: It should be fixed now. I think @Mar vin kaiser used 卐 as a dummy character to give lìn for Mandarin and liǎn for Taiwan for the character 膦, which has another pronunciation (lìn-lín) already. I don't think lìn is used in 膦軟, so I've changed 卐 to liǎn. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Ah, I see. Dokurrat (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Only one module error left. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yeah, I did that long, long ago, because it seemed to me that lìn was the only valid pronunciation in the Mainland. Can you find liǎn in any Mainland source though? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: It's in Hanyu Da Zidian. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

化學

Logically, because the concept of "chemistry" did not exist natively in China, and no attestations can be found in Classical Chinese. See the entry in 漢語大詞典 here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: That doesn't mean the word isn't coined in Chinese. The Japanese entry says that the Japanese word is borrowed from Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should find some good academic articles on these wasei kango to determine once and for all which are from Japanese and which were natively coined from within China. But it's a complicated topic as you know. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely hard to untangle the origins of words like these. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

structure of 兒化 words

Hello again! I saw your edit to 反犬旁兒 in which you changed the structure of the word to 'type=112', and I would like to ask: does that mean (by analogy) that a page like 年頭兒 should be changed to 'type=12'? Thanks for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think it should be judged case by case. And sometime it can be hard to judge. I only edit the entries I am sure about. As for this specific page 年頭兒, I don't have an opinion (yet). Dokurrat (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: For example, 天天兒 and 玩意兒 should be type=21, not 12. Dokurrat (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I can see the difference now. Thanks --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: You're welcome. Dokurrat (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Dialectal Jin, dialectal Wu, etc.

I usually use these if terms are not used in the prestige/representative dialect within these groups, i.e. Taiyuan dialect for Jin, Shanghainese for Wu, Nanchang dialect for Gan, Changsha dialect for Xiang, Meixian/Sixian dialect for Hakka, Guangzhou/Hong Kong dialect for Cantonese, Jian'ou dialect for Min Bei, Fuzhou dialect for Min Dong. This is probably not ideal, though. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I see. Dokurrat (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

蜻蜻

Why are you so stubborn? I think you're doing it just to spite me. I want to know how this word is pronounced by Chinese speakers when I see it. Mandarin pinyin is very relevant here. Even if you ask for a verification of the pronunciation, it's better than to leave it out completely. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^:вклад) 05:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I respect you just like I respect everyone I met in my life. Please, don't regard me like this. Dokurrat (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I don't think Dokurrat has anything against you. They're a bit stubborn at times, but I do agree with them that we should be more careful with giving pronunciations for dialectal words where the dialect in question cannot yet be represented in {{zh-pron}}. For this particular word, it seems like it's used to refer to some kind of small cicada in literary Chinese (per Hanyu Da Cidian), so it'd be fine to include a Mandarin pronunciation if we do list that definition. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)