User talk:Suzukaze-c

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
🗄

When replying to me elsewhere, please always {{ping}}/{{reply}} me. I do not have a list of conversations that I monitor.

ko-hanja[edit]

What do you think about User:LoutK/sandbox#ko-hanja? I know, very original. The wording could be changed, perhaps. Thanks! — LoutK (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@LoutK I will definitely work on implementing this (and updating {{ko-hanja-pron}}), but I have not been in the mood for coding recently :( —Suzukaze-c (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Thank you!! I'm just grateful that you're willing to help :) — LoutK (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

THINGS TO DO:

  1. ko
    1. this
    2. fix {{ko-hanja-pron}} invocations
    3. Module talk:ko-pron vowel merger
    4. Module:ko-pron collapse romanizations
    5. Module:ko-pron split prescriptive from modern seoul?
      • definitely needed -- Module:ko-pron/testcases, unlikely that someone would simultaneously pronounce 위 as /y/ and 애 as /e/
    6. add hanja (etc.) param to mod:links? this works
  2. ja
    1. move {{ja-ojad}} (see below)
    2. check {{ja-gv}} usage -- has been clarified
  3. zh rom systems:
    1. Module_talk:nan-pron#Teochew_/-n/_coda
    2. Wiktionary_talk:About_Chinese/Hakka#Proposal_for_switching_to_Taiwanese_Hakka_Romanization_System_from_Pha̍k-fa-sṳ
  4. other
    1. {{za-head}} new sawndip parameters
    2. dial-syn translingual module Mod:dialect synonyms
    3. new chinese 方言點
    4. figure out what to do w the gyeongnam dialect dictionary idk
    5. Template:ko-dial-syn#To-do

Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:佬.

Undoing older revision after intermediate edits[edit]

Hi,

I have a technical question: how do you undo older revisions like you did in diff without getting the error: "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I clicked on "Undo" and MediaWiki didn't give me that error, because there were no intermediate edits that prevented the undo from cleanly happening, so I undid it. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Strange. I am never able to do that if there are subsequent edits. I can see Shāntián Tàiláng edited after Fumiko Take. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe it depends on where the intermediate edits were done. You can undo things if the following edits were to different parts of the entry. I'm not sure how smart the system is about determining how local the edits were if someone clicks edit for the whole entry but changes only one section. I do know that if the first edit was to one section and the subsequent edits were to different sections, there's no problem at all with undoing the first edit. It's all a matter of which edit link was clicked to start editing. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Move ja-ojad to the Conjugation section[edit]

Hi, this is Dine2016. Last year I created the ja-ojad template and added it to the Pronunciation section of Japanese entries. But it was a mistake both logically and aesthetically -- I should have added it to the Conjugation/Inflection section, making the template similar (in appearance) and next to the modern and classical conjugation tables. Can you fix my mistake with a bot?

I now use and contribute to EDICT/JMdict, but none of its interfaces (WWWJDIC, Jisho.org, etc.) can show the accentuation of conjugated forms, so I still look them up on Wiktionary, occasionally. I am ashamed to see my contribution to the mess in the Pronunciation section every time I revisit.

There are many aspects in which I'm unhappy with the entry layout of Japanese entries, but my inability to write good English has prevented me from getting them understood. --2409:894C:3C18:8DA:A1A1:87C7:BF8B:6598 08:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll add it to the to-do list.
(And while you are here, can I ask for clarification of template purpose at User_talk:Poketalker#{{ja-gv}}?) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for volunteering to fix the ja-ojad problem.
The soft-redirect templates were a failure -- I implemented them through trial and error, going through several iterations without documenting the changes or explaining the rationale.
ja-gv was confusingly named. I should probably have named it as ja-see-kyu (standing for kyujitai). The difference between ja-see and ja-gv is that ja-see is for conditional variants while ja-gv is for unconditional variants. ひ is a conditional variant for 日 because it doesn't apply to the 'Sunday' and 'Japan' senses under the reading Nichi, but 燈 is an unconditional variant of 灯 for obvious reasons. My preference was to treat all variant spellings as conditional except those differing only in shinjitai/kyujitai, itaiji, and kanji repetitive marks. This way I was able to make ja-gv copy the kanjitabs as well. (As a result ja-gv is not suitable for 阿しゅく如来/阿閦如来, which have different numbers of kanji and can not share kanjitabs.) @Poketalker, Eirikr
I admit that this is too complicated; this is why I stopped working on soft redirect templates and instead pushed for the 'one word per page, one page per word' change. --2409:894C:3C10:2C3:D3BE:1176:D694:E784 08:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
(Oh, and it's nice to see you again, even if only for a trivial message like this — I thought I had written this in my first reply, but I guess I accidentally deleted it. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC))

I think the best way for Wiktionary currently is to get rid of the soft redirect templates (i.e. remove them from mainspace with a bot) and instead develop a searching interface that allows you to type any spelling of a word (including romaji) and instantly land on the lemma form. I suppose this is possible with a javascript gadget that doesn't require additional software on the MediaWiki servers. (You probably have something similar for SC->TC, too.) --2409:894C:3C18:97A:FE2A:D029:DA06:671D 02:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hm, so non-lemma pages would have no Japanese content? It's a strange idea to me.
I also believe that a (theoretical) advanced searching interface would be best hosted on Toolforge (or whatever it's called today), to allow for complex design and free rein (underlying database of a list of entries or something), unfettered by the restriction of having just one JavaScript gadget. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

華盛頓华盛顿 (Huáshèngdùn)[edit]

A few years ago you made this edit. I was wondering, why did you regard 華盛頓 as PSM? RcAlex36 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: The semantics of 華 and 盛 gave me that impression, but I don't really care either way. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's not clear. It's just pretty characters used to adapt the loanword, which isn't quite necessarily PSM. I've changed it to just borrowing. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Corrections[edit]

Thanks for the corrections! Keep it coming if you see more. Also, I learned the more correct way to use the quote book module to give page numbers from your example. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

鎧袖一触[edit]

Hiya. Do you think it's appropriate to have a Japanese term in "Chinese terms with usage examples"? (If you're already aware of the problem, just ignore this.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

承德, Chengde[edit]

It appears you (or someone else) turned Chengde into a Hubei city (it's in Hebei). Would you mind fixing it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This mistake is wildly common, and I would say more common than the confusion of Henan and Hunan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

まばら#Etymology[edit]

Meant to ping you from the edit comment but forgot.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"maybe heavy intensive due to invocation of Module:script"[edit]

I was wondering why 6 new entries popped up in CAT:E with out of memory errors at the same time, so I started going through the revision histories of the transclusions to see what had been changed recently. This is the first one I found from today. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

yeah :')
I directly copied the text into the module now. Maybe it will be better. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The two that I hadn't already cleared by other means just required null edits. I checked one and it's now 2.63 MB below the 50MB limit. I was going to ask about that Japanese entry with the mid dot, but I see you got to it first. It's gone. I wish they were all this easy... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Doubts about the reversion[edit]

Hi. Hope everything's going well in these turbulent days...

Concerning the reversion you did it here, I was wondering why not keep the links on particles and punctuation, since this site is one of the greatest tools of learning and research, languages-wise?

Speaking for myself, a continuous Japanese (and other languages as well) learner, I'd like to check all words and entries of the language I would have doubts about, and if they can be accessed from the same page, it would be very very handy... That's the reason I "linkfied" them. Besides, I already heard from some guys who are learning and to whom I talked about Wiktionary, that they thought very strange not to have links exactly on the particles, which is one of the most tricky matters when learning the language... Then, I went a little further and included the punctuation too. So, couldn't this be considered, from a learner/layman point of view? If I were one of them - and I kinda am -, I'd like to check everything I could and in a practical and accessible manner...

By the way, is there some official policy about this? Could you please point it out?

Finally, about the edition on やって来た at that same entry, I didn't get it. Since normally there's no specific entry for verbs in past tense (or other inflections), I always put the link to the main entry, so that people could check the conjugation and see the words are related. Why did you isolate the た again?

Thanks in advance.

Cpt.Guapo (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there shouldn't be any wikilinks in usage examples, but no one is going out of their way to enforce that (especially in languages that have active communities with their own practices). I, personally, don't care one way or the other. See WT:USEX Chuck Entz (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. The relevant bit:
  • not contain wikilinks (the words should be easy enough to understand without additional lookup).
I can broadly agree for English, but for usage examples of text in other languages, I think other considerations should hold -- our readership can only be assumed to have knowledge of English.
My 2p, anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eirikr: In my opinion, Wikilinks are useful in usexes. If I haven't provided them in my edits or they are incomplete, then I just didn't get around to do it. The longer usex, the longer it takes to make them but long usexes may be useless for complete beginners. I don't think we need to link to the punctuation but particles may also be useful for beginners.
@Chuck Entz: The policy should be definitely revisited, since all Chinese, Thai and Khmer usexes are already in "violation", since their corresponding language-specific templates ({{zh-x}}, {{th-x}}, {{km-x}}) automatically link to individual terms, which is very useful for the complex scripts, especially with no spaces between words. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cpt.Guapo Hm, I wasn't aware of that. My personal style is to lean towards linking non-function words; after that, particles and conjugation, etc. is visually distinctive (unlinked), similar to how we choose what words to link to in definitions ([[The]] [[small]]est [[unit]] [[of]] [[language]] vs. The [[small]]est [[unit]] of [[language]]). One can then see that the "core" part (root) of a long complex item like 食べられてしまう is 食べ i.e. 食べる.
As for punctuation links, I just find it incredibly odd, since they are the most basic items, and I doubt anyone would click on it.
In the end, I recognize that it's just personal style, and really I wouldn't have bothered to revert your edit if you didn't link to the punctuation, which really stood out to me as peculiar.
As for WT:USEX—I'm actually a bit astonished by this (especially as someone who often links to policy when disputing things). I add links firstly because of precedent from editing Chinese, and secondly to assist readers in word recognition (they're on a dictionary; it's natural they will want to look up the words they encounter: why not help out by adding links in advance?). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, it's a nice way to quickly find out if an entry is missing from Wiktionary. I make the links directly on the page instead of manually inputting every word in the search bar or relying on intuition, then save the links to the page because they're helpful to others as well. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, thanks a lot for the heads-up, answers and opinions, guys.
I concur with that idea of revisiting the policies, mostly, but not only limited to, the languages using complex scripts. All in all, considering those experiences with other learners, and also with those people who is just curious about other languages - e.g. who are doing a little research for their eventual work or study - I'm using such perspectives to give my contribution to the Wiktionary. I agree about the oddity on linked punctuation, but from there to conclude that nobody will look up for them is debatable. Looking from a language instructed person point of view is ok, but as for other people? Since it's a different script compared to your language, the doubts will normally appear...
For example, CURRENTLY I know about "maru/handakuten" and "tenten/dakuten", because I have a minimum knowledge on the language thanks to my other studies - and to the Wiktionary too -, but what about those who haven't? I had the same questions in the past... "Wait, why do they use that little circle there? And what about those 'quotes'? Those brackets are strange..." I think it's pretty fair to think that you will find that out on a Japanese dictionary, since those are specific to such language...
My opinion is, since this is a social platform as well, that is necessary to have some empathy and think like those learners, "searchers" and curious guys to build a better platform. Otherwise Wiktionary will ended up being too scholastic, too literary, kinda dismissive... Of course, the best of both worlds is the ultimate goal I believe, and finally not forgetting all policies necessary to keep everything organized. Cpt.Guapo (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Japanese kyujitai entries[edit]

Hi! Thanks for updating some kyujitai entries with the new template. But I have a question: the updated versions do not show that the entries are kyujitai forms, but only that they are "alternative forms". Is there a way to show it? Jonashtand (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonashtand The wording is currently as intended (#Move_ja-ojad_to_the_Conjugation_section). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Kana-spelled lemmas[edit]

I've noticed you tend to sometimes add the hiragana forms of words as the main lemma page and use a redirect for the same word spelled with kanji, even when such hiragana form is generally not used (for example, recently added きぶとり has 800x less hits on google than 着太り). I don't think this a good practice, so I want to ask you why of this. On the other hand, it seems there are also some other people doing this (identity protected), so I figure there must be a good reason. Alves9 (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(chiming in)
@Alves9: There was a round of discussion some time back (1? 2 years?) about lemmatization schemes here at Wiktionary, to try to deal with the structural incompatibility between how the MediaWiki back-end works, and how Japanese terms are often many-to-many when it comes to spellings and readings and etymologies. Japanese electronic dictionaries (both the old-school hardware kind and modern software ones) seem to handle this through a much more elegant indexing system than we have here -- a user can input a search term in either kana or kanji, and if there are multiple hits for the search string, they are presented with a short list of matches to choose from, or, depending on the platform, they're presented with a combined view collating all of the matches.
After much discussion, we decided that yamato kotoba are more likely to have homographs and homophones, and thus we (the JA editing community at the time) decided to lemmatize these at the kana spellings. Consider the many spellings and senses for つける (tsukeru), which ultimately share their etymological origins.
At the same time, we decided to keep kango at the kanji spellings, since kango terms are much more closely tied to their graphemic representation.
We considered that there would be cases for yamato kotoba where a given kana spelling only has one matching kanji spelling, etymology, term, etc., and we came to the conclusion that this was not a blocker. Where needed, we could add ====Usage notes==== and {{ja-usex}} to clarify.
I hope that helps explain the background. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
^ —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it simply would be common sense to only use such a convention for the words that have multiple different kanji spellings who are both equally widely used and whose meanings overlap to some extent with each other (the only widely used modern spelling for "つける" (apply), which is a bad example in the first place since it is seldom written with kanji, is "付ける", the alternative spelling 着 (附 is just a variation of 付) being fundamentally only used for slight nuancing. The other spellings besides this one are completely different words, which means they should not be on the same page. The example is not a good one; no problem, however, as I've given a better one below.) Such a case is relatively rare if you stick your head outside of elementary school-grade Japanese, so even the existence of a convention in the first place, which would be otherwise justified it was exactly kept just for those few numbers of words, becomes disagreeable when you apply it to all words irrespectively of usage. The result is a dictionary that not only looks like it was written by a child but is also hard to read, not mentioning absurd cases like prioritising the lemmatisation of a spelling that is 800x less common than another for some vague sense of uniformity.
So, since your example was not good enough, I will give a better one. Take a word such as 知る. It clearly means "know", having no other extant spellings. But since it is a "yamato kotoba" it must be spelled with hiragana! Now it's sitting on the same page as also "yamato kotoba" 汁, even though they have no connection whatsoever and their pronunciations are different. Clearly this is not a good system, if you're willing to follow through with it. If you're not, then you prove my point that words like 着太り whose kanji spelling's frequency outnumber their hiragana by a factor of 800 should not follow the convention. The reason why this is an important point is because someone has been moving pages to a hiragana spelling recently, which must mean uniformity is a factor in this. Alves9 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alves9: In this case, lemmatization at the kana spelling is not at all indicative of most-common form, but simply a technical consideration, as I tried to make clear further above. For various entries, discerning the "most common" spelling becomes an exercise in subjectivity. We thus settled on across-the-board lemmatization of yamato kotoba at the kana spellings, as that is an immediately understandable standard for editors.
Looking at your example, しる "to know" has additional (albeit less common) spellings 領る (c.f. KDJ entry, quite rare at google:"を領る") and 識る (c.f. WWWJDIC entry, actually not that rare at google:"を識る").
Re: tsukeru, arguably all of the transitive senses are extensions from a core meaning of something like "to stick something with, into, or onto something else". Splitting those all out into individual entries for each kanji spelling makes about as much sense as splitting up each sense of English get into separate entries. Monolingual dictionaries generally group the senses for つける under immediate derivation, as seen in the Daijisen entry.
Other technical approaches we discussed included locating the actual entry data at unique kanji + kana combinations, such as by creating a page at 知る/しる that would contain the actual entry, and have that transcluded into the appropriate sections at しる, 知る, 識る, 領る. We never hit upon a fully satisfactory structure, and set that challenge aside for later, preferring to focus on building out the actual entries -- which can always be moved later, if and when we collectively decide on a different structure. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on those "technical considerations"? As far as I see, creating a page with the main kanji spelling (which is not subjective) and having the alternate, less common spellings under the alternative spellings header would make much more sense from a technical standpoint than copy-pasting entries, which seems to be what you're advocating. It seems like a lot of work for almost no gain; but fortunately that's not what I'm arguing for. My only concern is that such a convention is extended to entries which have no explainable reason for following it, and which are actually actively harmed by it, like the multitude of native Japanese words which do not feature multiple, commonly used spellings with non-overlapping meanings, or even those which do not feature any alternative spellings at all, like the 着太り entry. 知る could also be argued to belong to the former category, as the alternative spellings 識/領 have the exact same meaning and can be used interchangeably with 知 at will (which they will most of the time, as they're highly academic spellings that most of the current Japanese populace will not know how to read). As for your argument that setting one single unified standard for all entries would make it easier for others editors to understand the convention: the people who actively and regularly create new entries in the Japanese dictionary could be probably counted in one's hand. There's no reason to simplify the issue; if explaining it is too much trouble, then one could just make a temporary effort to move the very few number of native Japanese words that check the above conditions to their hiragana pages while keeping the other entries intact. I know that's not too much work as, like I've mentioned, someone has already been working on moving pages to hiragana, although they aren't the words that you'd expect, and some of them don't even possess an alternative spelling (example). Alves9 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alves9: To explain my silence: the discussion is long and distant, and I don't have the interest, time, or memory to revisit it for you. I will note that for comparison, the Japanese Wiktionary has an entry for ja:はしりや, and not ja:走り屋. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Failure to show up in an argument, or to rebuke any of its points, simply means you lose. I don't see how you have any right to show up a month later to make a non-sequitur about how the Japanese wiktionary happens to have one single entry to agree with your absurd terms (which might have been made by the same people in this discussion anyway, in which case that is exactly who I'm trying to convince). I will turn your expression of discontent against you: if you don't have time to respond to my comments, then neither have I to go back and look at those which were made years back. However, I'm glad you reverted those entries, as I'd thought you had just given up on the issue completely. Alves9 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no interest in 'winning' against someone who has no interest in investigating the background. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Anything you or I could say would in all certainty be a rehashing of points that have been made before. I have no interest in this. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
If I'm right, it doesn't matter whether those points were made before or not. Unless you have that little confidence in your arguments (or they are identical to Eirikr's), I'd like to see them here, if only to prove you actually care about the issue. Alves9 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a shitty arguer, and I have less confidence than you think I do. I don't have the interest, time, or memory to revisit it for you. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the point of this. I am not here because I want to argue with you personally. I'm here to restart the discussion that was made years ago, which I think had an unfair conclusion. If nobody can bring a convincing argument to keep the current standard in place, which I find ridiculous, then you must admit that I am right ("won"), and therefore devise a new standard. That is what argumentation is, it isn't a platform to crush your opponent. Whether you actually have the interest or not is mostly irrelevant. Alves9 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alves9, remember that this is a collaborative volunteer project -- one "wins" by gaining the respect and agreement of the other editors, not by pursuing the same argument until others stop responding to you.
None of our current approach involves copy-pasting entire entries, FWIW -- non-lemma entries use {{ja-see}} and related templates and backing modules to dynamically fetch and display relevant information from the lemma entries, while directing users to click through to the lemma entries to see fuller detail.
I too have little interest in rehashing past arguments. We (the JA editors) hit upon a functional approach, and we are generally more interested in building the entries out than in revisiting technical details.
If you would like to discuss the structuring of JA content, I recommend that you open a thread at WT:BEER and ping JA editors. Any individual's Talk page is ultimately not an appropriate forum for determining policy changes of such a potentially broad impact. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong...[edit]

but there seems to be a problem with Module:ko-pron. See CAT:E. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:') —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Epenthetical vowels[edit]

Would it be possible to set up {{ko-suffix}} so that {{ko-suffix|epenth=y}} for e.g. 니까 (nikka) shows the headline as —(으)니까 and categorizes it as Category:Korean suffixes with epenthetic 으?--Tibidibi (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneSuzukaze-c (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why:[edit]

See 오래간만입니다. There's no reason at all to transliterate

[[오래간만]] [[이다|입니다]]!

The whole point of the |head= parameter is to bypass all the code that processes the headword. That's true for every every other language, so making an ad hoc exception for one language is just going to confuse people. If you need to deal with oddities like parentheses, you should create a parameter just for that. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why one wouldn't transliterate it. Why should the exclamation point be excluded from the transliteration? And it is the same affair for Arabic vocalization, where vowels inserted in |head= are reflected in the translit. :s
The error message about non-Hangul is due to overly paranoid code that needs to be relaxed appropriately. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nemaki in katakana?[edit]

Is there any solid lexical reason to have an entry for ネマキ?

Basically any term can be spelled in katakana, depending on what effect the author is trying to impart. The number of native 和語 that should be spelled in katakana is rather small. I note that we don't generally have entries for English terms in ALL CAPS, for instance, unless there's a lexical reason for doing so, such as COBOL or BASIC.

Curious as to your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr Feel free to delete it ("created in error"). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks! Done.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:ko-IPA[edit]

Inspired by the sandbox of @LoutK, I've set up some examples of what {{ko-IPA}} might eventually look like in User:Tibidibi/Sandbox.

Ideally there would be a question mark after each line with hover text for each line ("Standard Korean pronunciation, based on Seoul speakers in the early twentieth century; the formal standard in both Koreas, but rarely strictly followed in either" / "Common pronunciation by speakers born in Seoul in the 1990s" / "Likely common pronunciation by speakers born in Pyongyang in the 1990s; irregular sound shifts may not be taken into account.")--Tibidibi (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

せえ[edit]

Heya, re: diff, thanks for the explanation in the edit summary -- agreed then that the usex probably deserves the clarifying note.

Should the sense line also have the label?

My first-hand experience living in the language was all in the Kantō and Tōhoku regions, where I never heard せえ (). In my more limited experience in Nagano as a visitor over the span of a few weeks, I also don't recall encountering this there. If this is せえ () is indeed absent from northwestern Japanese, we should find a way to record that somehow in our entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I would be thrilled if "dialectal" was made more specific. I don't have that information. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Good to know, cheers!  :)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Huhu9001, Alves9, are any of you familiar enough with the dialectal details of せえ () to have a go at clarifying the sense label? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12128990377 -- Huhu9001 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Fix ajaxediting section-0[edit]

こんにちは。雖然enwikt無法編輯section-0,其他項目可以。編輯section-0並Save會導致section-0編輯框無法收縮,以及section-0多餘的Ædit標籤。爲此,我已自行修復,若能參考我的代碼,我將不勝感激。--EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

哦,感謝。但您是如何編輯section 0的?(?_?)想親自試一下。
(@Dixtosa) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
在zhwikt 參數設置開啓第一項為頁面的序言章節添加[編輯]鏈接,或enwiki Preferences開啓Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
好, 已更新!—Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

ぶつぶつ[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:ブツ.

Module:ja-see[edit]

Heya, any idea how to keep {{ja-see}} from generating the Invalid <ref> tag errors at ばしゃうま?

One workaround would be to change the <ref name="..."/> self-closing tags back to the full format, but that seems less than ideal. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the named refs are a property of the whole page rather than of the part of the page you're extracting. That is, if the form with ja-see is a synonym for only Etymology 3, there's no guarantee that the <ref name="DJS">{{R:Daijisen}}</ref> type of tags aren't in Etymology 1 or Etymology 2. The only foolproof way to handle this is to have separate code that creates a table of ref names and their content. Then it's just a choice between making sure that the first instance of each named ref in your extracted text has the content in it, or substituting a pair of plain ref tags with the content between (i.e. <ref>{{R:Daijisen}}</ref>) for every self-closing/contentless named ref tag (i.e. <ref name="DJS"/>). I hope I'm not just explaining the obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would modify {{ja-see}} to strip away the refs. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Suzukaze-c: I realized that the crux of the issue was that I had tried putting refs on the sense line to back up the explanation, experimenting with an approach in response to Huhu9001's puzzling distaste for etymology sections. I've just now moved the sense development details into the etym section at 馬車馬, and that seems to have resolved the issue at ばしゃうま.
Thank you both for your responses! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

ka ending adjectives[edit]

Re: ja:w:カ語尾, do we have a conjugation table for these, that we could add at entries like 強か or 熱か? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr: No. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

~ば as object marker?[edit]

Re: diff, I don't think I've ever encountered this. There's をば that still has some dialectal use, in turn from object を + topic / emphatic / contrastive は. Perhaps this is a contraction of that? Do you have any usexes or other details? Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Fukuoka (全国方言辞典), Yamagata, Hakata (ja.wp), Hokkaido, Sendai, Hakata, Kyushu (ja.wt). ^^ —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The northern end of Honshu is where I've personally run across をば before. That Goo page has no derivation information, but the JA WP link indicates a contraction of をば. In the few examples I've seen so far, this ば occurs where the preceding noun ends in ん, like 本ば or ラーメンば, or where the preceding noun already ends in /o/, like ほいじょば, which are the phonological environments where we might expect the を to contract out. I also see now over in the KDJ entry at Kotobank that they also derive this usage from をば, first dating it to the early 1800s. Interesting!
Thank you for the links! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think about the etymology, and I feel greatly enlightened knowing about をば :) Adding that to the Etymology section would be great. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

濁 and yomi types[edit]

Heya, is there any publicly available online Koujien? I don't have much by way of good resources for kanji yomi types -- the major works just broadly lump all the on'yomi together.

More specific to the entry, it surprises me that the goon would be じょく -- the JA WT entry gives the goon as daku and the kan'yōon as joku; also, the Middle Chinese reading of (MC ɖˠʌk̚) suggests daku rather than joku. The anon's edit-comment mention of 捉 didn't make much sense to me, since the Middle Chinese is so different. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Duplicates Question[edit]

Hey- thanks for finding those duplication errors you have found. Are you looking at 'Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls'? How are you finding these? If you can tell me how to do it, I will watch for errors I make. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You can add it to your Watchlist. When a page enters it, the addition will appear in your Watchlist, if "page categorization" isn't hidden/disabled. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, you can link to categories like this: Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template callsSuzukaze-c (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, I used to check it manually, but got tired of finding the right people to ping for ~50 entries at once, so I subscribed to the RSS feed ("feed-icon.svg Atom") at Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, and I don't use my Watchlist productively. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

太極門[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#太極門.

[edit]

why did you delete my edit for 頔? Doesn't the Hanja Dictionary here:https://zetawiki.com/wiki/%E9%A0%94 literally say that I am right that the Hanja for 頔 is 적? I'm sorry I am new to this website. — Blahhmosh (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blahhmosh It was a malformed entry, missing a definition line or {{rfdef}}. 跳#Korean is an example of a fuller entry that you could mimic. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)