User talk:Suzukaze-c

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from User talk:Umbreon126)
Jump to: navigation, search
  • I am not good at communication.
    • I overthink my grammar and underthink my ideas.
    • My empathy is dysfunctional and sometimes my emotions come out wrong. Please bear with me.

Mandarin readings[edit]

I was just curious about supposedly having the Mandarin readings "āo, āo, niū, " when other sources say they are "ǎo, ào, niù (not 100% sure about )". Bumm13 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Shoot, it must have been one of those cases where the code I used to generate the entry accidentally ignored tone marks... I must figure out a way to track them down. —suzukaze (tc) 19:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ja-readings template[edit]

I just wanted to say thanks for what you did to the {{ja-readings}} template. Awesome job! thanks!! 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! User:Krun was the impetus though. —suzukaze (tc) 21:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious to know where you got the list of jōyō kanji which designates certain jōyō readings as uncommon (the one the {{ja-readings}} template draws data from). Knowing that a reading is uncommon is useful information, so I'm glad that information is included, but I was wondering how trustworthy that information is. For example, I could be wrong, but I thought 久遠 read as くおん is more common than 久遠 read as きゅうえん but the く reading has the "Jōyō, uncommon" label. 馬太阿房 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@馬太阿房 It was extracted from the Japanese Wikipedia page. If you know of any better sources I could look at it.—suzukaze (tc) 17:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think I figured out what it means, and it is useful information. I don't think it means that it is less common, but rather that is used in just a few or maybe just one or two words (words which may themselves be considered common and also more commonly read with that reading).馬太阿房 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Please check what I did to the Japanese section under . Feel free to revert or change my editing as you see fit, but I thought it looked very confusing the way it was and decided to do something about it. I'm thinking maybe User:Krun had already asked you to do something about this too because I noticed that he was the one who had made the changes utilizing the {{ja-kanji}} template which doesn't work properly in cases like this. Can you maybe do something with this template and template documentation to make it more usable for cases like this? 馬太阿房 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think anyone has discussed {{ja-kanji}} nor this particular problem (shinjitai co-opting of older characters) before. I'll think about it. —suzukaze (tc) 00:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


Hiya. You can see what I'm doing; converting {{ja-accent-common}} to {{ja-pron}}. But can you do a big favour for me? Please list all of the pages that use the former template. Thank you! 07:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ja-pronSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Template:ja-accent-commonsuzukaze (tc) 07:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
ありがとうございます。 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

/ 𪡏[edit]

The character is not being simplified correctly in the compounds section on its page. I presume that its simplified form, having been fairly recently added to Unicode, is missing from a simplification table in some module we have. Do you know how to fix this? There will also be several more new simplified characters missing from there, so it would probably be best to scour the most recent version of the Unihan database to get all the connections we’re missing. Edit: I noticed e.g. that the simplified form was added to the page late (2013), manually, by User:Bumm13, so I guess we’ve never had a good coverage of these later-encoded simplified forms. – Krun (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Krun: The data is at Module:zh/data/st (trad→simp) and Module:zh/data/ts (trad→simp). I've considered regenerating the data from other sources online (that are better than the Unihan database), but haven't gotten around to it... —suzukaze (tc) 01:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


Why isn't the reading なま showing the Jōyō kanji lable in the readings section? I can't figure out what the problem is. Can you fix this? 馬太阿房 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that the issue is resolved now. I don't know if you did anything, I did anything, or if it resolved itself.馬太阿房 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion limits[edit]

In this diff you used a rather ingenious kludge to get the desired display. Unfortunately, that caused the entry to hit the template include size, and a number of templates toward the bottom of the page displayed as links to the templates themselves without any of the parameters. An IP (sort of) fixed this by selectively undoing the edit on those templates that weren't displaying, but the display is now inconsistent and less-than-optimum. I'm not sure the best way to fix this, but you may think of something I haven't (the easiest way would be to split the page, I guess). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Damn, I hadn't noticed. I can only think of splitting the page. —suzukaze (tc) 05:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hanzi sortkeys[edit]

I was looking at the sortkey data modules when you were experimenting with a sortkey function in Module:sandbox. Your data module is pretty huge. I wonder, had you considered splitting it by Unicode codepoint or something? Then a function could get the codepoint for a character and look up its sortkey in the correct module. And then, at least on most pages (i.e., those that have characters from fewer submodules), the function would use less memory.

Isomorphyc divided up modules used for reference templates in a similar way, though I really don't understand how it works (see Category:Reference module sharded data tables). — Eru·tuon 06:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have considered it. I know Module:zh does it at .check_pron() but I don't understand the code. —suzukaze (tc) 06:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Erutuon, Suzukaze-c: Sorry I'm still away much longer than I thought. I am trying to make regular time for Wiktionary again. If you would like to pursue the sharding idea for data modules I can put my sharding code in GitHub or share it with some notes on my user page. It is in Python and it is simple conceptually; and I can help with explanations or cleaning up my Python style if necessary. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I would add that I do not really recommend sharding if you can avoid it. It is not very friendly to other editors, and is too low-tech to maintain itself cleanly, while the robot client nexus with Lua is overpowered for data storage, brittle, and not very open. I wasn't able to find your data-intensive sort key module, but my binary hash index key is probably not appropriate; if you must shard, a user transparent key, such as stroke count, radical or initial Pinyin letter would probably be better. Isomorphyc (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The module of sortkeys is at Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh/data/skeys. It has single characters indexed to a radical (?) and a number. I was thinking of just putting it in a bunch of separate modules organized by Unicode codepoint. I'm new to programming and I'm not totally sure how it would work, but I might be able to figure it out. — Eru·tuon 19:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I created a function to print out the content for the separate modules: Special:Permalink/47139321. — Eru·tuon 19:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If you like I could share the code I used to process into Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh/data/skeys. —suzukaze (tc) 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Naw (if you're talking to me). I can just compile the submodules from your master module. See the current version of Module:sandbox/documentation. (I've exceeded the template include size, so it won't display in Module:sandbox. XD)
Only question is how big the submodules should be.
Right now, the module puts each range of 5000 codepoints (for instance, codepoints 13312 to 18311) in a single module, and it yields 36 submodules. (That indicates there are gaps, because there are 87870 codepoints total, and 87870/36 ≈ 2440. So the number of characters in each module probably varies.)
This system might be maintainable: we could keep the submodule-compiling function and your master sortkey module, and recompile the submodules if there are any changes. And because it's based on codepoints, the organization should be stable. However, I wonder if the submodules should be smaller. More work, but less likely to cause memory problems. I don't know how to figure out the actual amount of memory used by the module, though. — Eru·tuon 00:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Bleh. There aren't actually that many modules. There's a big skip in the actual module numbers, corresponding to a skip in codepoints. There are still only 18 modules, approximately 87870 / 5000. — Eru·tuon 01:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
(I imagine that theoretically we could exclude a good number of the characters as being unused, but the modules might be used for unanticipated purposes in the future... —suzukaze (tc) 02:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC))
My experience was that 5k-50k is a good module size. One can be on the small side of the range if a single page might have a large number of different module transclusions; otherwise on the larger side. It is necessary to optimise for the worst case scenarios, usually involving short, high traffic, multi-language pages, depending on use case. I regularly made the mistake of not checking `Category:Pages_with_module_errors' often enough after changes for memory errors. Good luck. I did look over your data and I agree this is a very good candidate for sharding, and code point value is a good key. Isomorphyc (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting to create the modules. I think they're on the lower end of the range that you give. That should be safer. — Eru·tuon 06:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've got less than half of Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh/data/skeys added to subpages of Module:zh-sortkey/data. You can see the results on Module:zh-sortkey. (I should probably zero-pad the pagenames....) — Eru·tuon 07:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved the pages to zero-padded versions. So there are like 80 modules left to go. If you'd be willing to help, I'd greatly appreciate it. Just go to Module:User:Erutuon/zh/documentation and copy the module code into the appropriately numbered subpages of Module:zh-sortkey/data/. — Eru·tuon 18:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Thank you for doing this; you beat me to it. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Heh, I was planning to do it by hand and ask others to help, but then I thought, This is stupid, a bot should do it, so I asked DTLHS. But I hadn't considered that you might do it with OrphicBot. — Eru·tuon 22:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi. I saw your work on the new format of {{ja-readings}} and it looked much nicer. Just asking if it was possible to add the correspondence between the reading section and the kanji definitions for 多音字 like ? --Dine2016 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Like 樂#Korean? (which is an experiment) —suzukaze (tc) 04:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Korean hanja section looks great. I'd like to wait until we have enough Japanese 漢和 coverage, though. --Dine2016 (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, what would be the criterion for inclusion of kun-readings? I've just got a copy of the three-volume 広漢和辞典, but it seemed to list too many kun-readings, some of which are only used for reading kanbun. --Dine2016 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure... —suzukaze (tc) 03:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


Please check your last edit there. It looks like there are at least a couple of bogus/empty items in the list (at least those seem to be hyphens, not kana- but what do I know). The reason I noticed is that it led to the automatic creation of Category:Japanese kanji with kun reading -, which {{auto cat}} doesn't know what to do with. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Darn. Thanks for noticing.—suzukaze (tc) 03:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Cáo Cāo[edit]

Objecting your proposed quick deletion, I changed it to discussion. Personal names should generally be excluded, but limited exception should be considered with specific reasons. I was just trying to delink 曹操.Jusjih (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So far, the pinyin forms of deleted entries have also been deleted. Why should we keep a non-lemma form of a deleted entry? —suzukaze (tc) 00:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I have a new thought at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Cáo Cāo.--Jusjih (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Probably, but luckily Metaknowledge just protected it. - Amgine/ t·e 23:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

, and on'yomi of the pattern CVchi[edit]

I was curious about this change.

Generally speaking, I remember reading somewhere that at least some of the on'yomi ending in ち are essentially reconstructed and only found in kanji dictionaries, based on Middle Chinese readings that ended in /t/. Meanwhile, つ ending for such readings would basically be allophone, as the alternative Japanese nativization of a final /t/.

More specific to the entry, this would point to the がつ reading as the expected goon pair for がち. What is the basis for removing がつ from goon?

Also, is there any attestable evidence for the ごち reading in the historic record? I've had a poke in my resources and can't find anything.

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the other readings but gatsu is already listed as kan'youon. —suzukaze (tc) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If there's a case to be made for がつ being goon, it would seem to make more sense to remove the kan'yōon...? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose so. [1] has ガツ(グヮツ)(慣) though. It's either one or the other... —suzukaze (tc) 01:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


I'm surprised you are not a rollbacker yet, considering you are patrolling and reverting many (if not most) of the recent changes to CJKV entries. Would you like to become one? It is a one-click revert function, and will make patrolling much easier. Wyang (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, would you like to become an admin, Suzukaze? I think the community would greatly benefit from your patrol and reverting of vandalism, entry maintenance and technical skills. Wyang (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
rollbacker: Maybe. I must think about it more. I'm not sure I'm responsible enough.
admin: Never, for various personal reasons. —suzukaze (tc) 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries! Just let me know when you make up your mind with the rollbacking tool. I'm not sure what the correct procedure is with this, but I will find out. I think you will be the perfect candidate for it, with your invaluable patrolling edits. Wyang (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I've seen it done on the Whitelst page, just like autopatroller. @Suzukaze-c: As for responsibility: if you're responsible enough to regularly undo edits, you're responsible enough to do the same thing using the rollback tool. There are only two drawbacks: the rollback tool has a generic edit comment that you can't change, and it marks the edit as patrolled, so it disappears from Recent Changes for those who have patrolled edits filtered. The first gets you the occasional "why didn't you say what was wrong?" gripes, but you seem to good enough at dealing with that kind of thing. The second means that you need to let admins know when someone should be blocked or inappropriate content (mostly personally-identifiable details and spam/promotional content, but also some copyvios) hidden.
As for adminship: it's a responsibility, it changes how people deal with you, and it takes a certain temperament. It's not for everyone. We're all volunteers here, so I'm just grateful for anything anyone is willing to contribute- and you contribute a lot!!!. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'm trying to cut down on obsessively looking at Recent Changes all the time. It can't be good for me. —suzukaze (tc) 02:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Haha, you are not the only one obsessively doing that. Wyang (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Q re: {{ja-readings}}[edit]

I was editing recently to add readings, and found myself wondering what to do about いまいましい, canonically spelled 忌ま忌ましい. I added it to the readings list, but it's showing up as 忌まいましい, which is incorrect. Adding the reading as い-ま-い-ましい didn't work (I didn't really expect it to, but I gave it a try), and I couldn't figure out how to override the template.

Which leads to my questions:

  • Is there an override for readings like this?
  • Or should readings like this be omitted from the {{ja-readings}} list, as the kanji appears more than once?

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of such words existing. Imaimashii doesn't seem to be listed in my (admittedly feeble) sources for readings; are you certain it should be included in the first place? —suzukaze (tc) 04:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess that's the question. If a given kanji has a kun'yomi that includes that kanji plus kana, but the kanji appears more than once in the spelling, do we list that as a kun'yomi? I suppose it could be analyzed as a derivative instead. Your thoughts? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No idea, but I lean towards exclude for now until there is further information. —suzukaze (tc) 03:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll remove the いまいましい reading from the kanji section at for now.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi there! I wonder if you could lend a little help here. I'm trying to find out what this File:Culto do chá p25.png writing says. I'm almost positive it's an author signature, saying either Yoshiki or Goto Seikodo. Thanks! NMaia (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it says either. Try asking someone else, I'm sorry. —suzukaze (tc) 04:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@NMaia It reads 芳明 (drawn by 芳明 Yoshiaki), whoever that is. Maybe Utagawa Yoshiaki. Wyang (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang, Eirikr Many thanks for your help! :) NMaia (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang, Eirikr, Suzukaze-c Pure curiosity here, but this work cites a Gotô Seikôdô as illustrator. Does that name ring any bells? NMaia (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@NMaia -- Googling for that name (google:"goto seikodo") throws up a handful of results suggesting that Gotō Seikōdō did the engraving. That said, while "Gōtō" is a common surname (後藤), "Seikōdō" sounds like a company rather than a personal name. I can find online reference to google:"後藤清高堂" (read as Gotō Seikōdō) as a company based in Kyōto, close to Kōbe, but I'm not sure if this is the correct kanji spelling for the work you're looking at. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


This looks pretty cool.

One concern -- the "nn" spelling. That is unusual, and unexpected as a romanization spelling. Would you object to moving this to Template:ja-kana-manyogana-etym with one n? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really. I think I was thinking in waapuro romaji at the time. —suzukaze (tc) 19:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
(why not man'yogana? —suzukaze (tc) 19:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC))
I'm open to including the apostrophe. I had come by the thought somewhere that apostrophes weren't allowed in template names? If that's not an issue, sure. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems like it's OK. en.wp has a template named '. —suzukaze (tc) 19:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think whatever works in entry names also works in template names. — Eru·tuon 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Links in usage examples[edit]

"Unusual"? There's a problem with the linking within the usage example, so my preference is to link the romanized parameter so the terms within the ll template go directly to the respective language heading. For comparison: before your revision, your revision after that

Tried using on the usage itself, but there are "escaped" links or something. --POKéTalker (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I hadn't noticed that the #Japanese anchor was missing, my bad. I do think it is unusual to have links in the romanization instead of in the original text; I don't think I've seen it before in our entries. I believe this shouldn't be hard to fix, although I haven't had the time to fix things lately. Instead, I shall call on @Erutuon. —suzukaze (tc) 03:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I ran the ruby through the language_link function in Module:links if it contains double brackets; that sends the links to the Japanese header. Till now, the ruby was just being language-tagged and nothing more. —This unsigned comment was added by Erutuon (talkcontribs).


Hi. Any ideas about including 文語 forms for Japanese terms? Seen a lot of them in Japanese dictionaries. Perhaps the headword template of Japanese verbs and adjectives can give the classical conjugation, and the shuushikei if it is different from the modern form in hhira, and the conjugation/declension tables could be extended to include the six bases of the classical form? @Eirikr --Dine2016 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be fantastic. Honestly I really think our current conjugation tables aren't helpful (I certainly don't use them) and need some sort of overhaul in general. I am hesitant about working on stuff like this though; I didn't learn Japanese conventionally, and I suspect many of my views regarding grammar are really weird. Japanese grammar from the Japanese point-of-view is also not something I'm that familiar with (I think that's why I don't like the current conjugation tables). —suzukaze (tc) 06:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would make more sense to figure out how to represent Classical Japanese, which is what 文語形 essentially is. The hhira parameter is intended to express the historical kana spelling of the headword; using that to show the kana spelling of something other than the headword would be very confusing. And to clarify, the historical kana is the pre-reform spelling of the same form of the same word. Modern 匂う (niou) is spelled におう (niou) in the modern spelling, and にほふ (nihofu) in the pre-reform spelling, although both were pronounced as niou in recent history. Meanwhile, modern 付ける (tsukeru, to stick one thing onto another thing; to turn something on, transitive) has the same kana spelling in both modern and pre-reform orthography, and a Classical Japanese form of 付く (tsuku), identical to the modern intransitive verb -- the transitive and intransitive were differentiated by conjugation patterns. Adding the Classical to the hhira of modern 付ける (tsukeru) would be highly confusing.
I'm completely supportive of building in Classical Japanese content. It's just not compatible with our modern Japanese infrastructure, and it's different enough that we should probably treat it separately. We have lang code ojp for Old Japanese, which I'd also like to see built out at some point, but so far as I know, Classical Japanese has no ISO language code. Can we create our own code for Classical Japanese and go from there? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: I'm in agreement that our conjugation tables could use reworking. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry for the misunderstanding in my post above. I was aware that modern form, modern form in historical spelling, and classical form are three things, and I meant to include the third, e.g. たずねる―たづねる―たづぬ, if it is different from the second, not put the third in the place of the second. I should have checked the grammar before posting it.) --Dine2016 (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want a head start, 紅葉つ (momitsu) and 紅葉ず (momizu), classical verb forms of 紅葉 (momichi, momiji), have been created a long time ago. Do they have to be under the Old/Classical Japanese header? --POKéTalker (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • My 2p is on "yes" -- momitsu is listed as 四段活用, which is not modern, and momizu is described as 上二段, also not modern, as an innovation on momitsu that arose some time in the early Heian, maybe later (「平安初期以後上二段化し...」). Shogakukan's 国語大辞典 lists two spellings for momizu, and neither is listed on Weblio, suggesting that the verb is obsolete: 紅葉ず, and 黄葉ず. OJP is sometimes delineated as everything before the Heian, which would suggest that momizu would be Classical and not Old. Then again, w:Old Japanese says the transition was some time during the Heian, suggesting that momizu could be classed as Old Japanese.
That said, we only have limited infrastructure for OJP, and we don't have any infrastructure at all for Classical -- until such time as we have somewhere more specific to put momitsu and momizu, I have no strong objection if they stay under a ==Japanese== header for the time being.
My bigger concern, as relates to this whole idea of building out our Classical Japanese content, is how to delineate between Classical Japanese, and Old Japanese? If we can narrow down a term's etymological details to show that the term only arose in the Muromachi, for example, then that's clearly not OJP. But if a term is attested in OJP, and also in later stages of the language, do we include it in all three (Old, Classical, modern)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Why was my edit to this word reversed? Johnnysama (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Johnnysama: My guess (since I'm not Suzukaze) is that he objected to your removal of the count/noncount distinction. 精液 in Japanese is not countable, so it has no counter. The count=- text that you removed specifies that this term is not countable and has no counter. This is useful and correct information, and your removal of this information made the entry less useful and less correct.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Eiríkrさんのおっしゃる通りです。—suzukaze (tc) 04:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Suzukaze - I see you reverted my added pron. for 莫. To tell you the truth, it was my first time at making an edit to a Chinese page, so perhaps I did not do the right thing. However, I do believe this character is pronounced mài in Hokkien in Singapore (and is apparently an old-fashioned pronunciation in Taiwan as well). Is there some way that info can be added? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Read my edit summary. —suzukaze (tc) 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah all is clear. Sorry to have caused you an unnecessary tidy-up.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)