User talk:Bumm13

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This shouldn't be done. The reason is the redirect gives no information as to why the entry is a redirect, not a full entry. For example, is it a misspelling, a synonym, an alternative encoding? So please give these full entries unless there is a reason not to. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for trying to correct the WP link. It's simpler than you think. Take a look at what I did. (I also made other unrelated changess.) DCDuring TALK 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please use {{rfv-sense}} instead of {{fact}} (and click the little "+" sign to add the term to the WT:RFV page). On Wiktionary, people don't really use or pay attention to {{fact}}. Thanks, :) - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because of your excellent ability to handle large quantities of Han character data, I thought you might be interested in dealing with some of this. This category contains characters that do not have a definition in the Translingual section, and thus are wholly definitionless. However, you (of course) may ignore this if you so choose, and it's probably not as important as the work you're doing currently. By the way, I especially appreciate the jyutping entries — do keep up the good work! Thank you —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, could you perhaps give a little attention to 𨒙? Thank you —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the random requests, but could you please add a Hakka section to 服? Thank you so much as always —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

must always be two-digit, so for single-digit amounts, a leading zero must be added. The sorting will break if this isn't the case. So yeah. -- Liliana • 15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's been kind of said already by others but seriously, thank you for all the good work here, and keep it up! :) It's great to see someone working on entries for single CJKV characters. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 01:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see you have recently created entries like ngou6‎ and suk6. Thus, WT:RFD#ngo5 may be of interest to you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can add multiple translations before saving. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why it is considered an adjective in Cantonese? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am just curious, having seen you adding these as definitions. In what way are they separate senses? Do they not have any of their usual word meanings when they appear in the I Ching, i.e. they are just "pictures"? Equinox ◑ 23:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting stuff. My first encounter with the I Ching was a simple computer programming example in an old manual. I had no idea what it meant or what it was for. ("Press ENTER a sixth time and the program will erase itself - this is to discourage you from using it frivolously.") Equinox ◑ 02:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You absolutely need to create the simplified form. This is compulsory for all Mandarin editors. Fixed it for you this time. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you've edited some Vietnamese character entries. I proposed a new layout for such entries and welcome your input.

The new layout uses {{vi-readings}}, which requires you to explicitly classify readings as Nôm or Hán-Việt. I think it'll be an improvement over {{vi-hantu}}, which doesn't distinguish between the two reading styles. However, some entries, such as 𡃊, give Nôm readings under a "Han character" heading without saying "chữ Nôm" anywhere, giving the impression that they're Hán-Việt readings. Do you think this is a widespread problem, or will it be practical to correct these entries by hand after switching to the new layout?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you fix the Cantonese readings of this character? Cheers. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Hanzi sections for each topoldct will eventually disappear and will be moved to Chinese Pronunciation sections. The merger is almost compete and we are already working on single character entries. Perhaps it's not worth spending time on adding Cantonese pronunciations but add them to the merged entries or join the effort? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough about the "Hanzi" subsection issue; it probably isn't worth doing at this point. As for Cantonese pronunciations, I'm just curious as to how single-character CJKV article conversion to "Chinese" is going? Is there a bot that is currently working on the conversions? If not, it's going to take a long time to finish... One other question: I noticed that articles converted to "Chinese" show very "summary" (basic) readings information and those are easily edited but I can't seem to edit content that is normally hidden (such as nested references). I don't know if this is a particular browser issue or the inteneded behavior of the new template formatting. Regards, Bumm13 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

(You could have replied on your talk page, which is on my watchlist :)) There is no current bot and it seems not very easy to automate single-character CJKV entries. That's why it's even more important, IMHO, to concentrate on the work that humans have to do manually. By creating good examples, it becomes easier and further work can be made easier. If a Chinese entry with {{zh-pron}} is made for Mandarin - Cantonese, Hakka, Min Nan and Wu can also be added, also topolectal words, pronunciations, usage examples. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's a suggested form of an entry you have edited: this revision of 恅 (it has also Wu, Hakka, Old Chinese (oc), Middle Chinese (mc) but they don't have to be there, if unknown). The format is not too complicated, I think. So if you want to add a new Cantonese reading, you can try this as an example. This entry doesn't have PoS and definitions but I think you have seen those with them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for the conversions but I have a few questions and suggestions.

1. Why are you using Noun and Definitions? It's one or the other, IMO and they are L3 level (===). And there's no need to leave the request for definitions {{defn}}, since you're PROVIDING them.
2. Hakka - please use , which provide "Pha̍k-fa-sṳ" (PFS), not POJ - the actual romanised Hakka, which is used. site is very old and it's romanisation has errors and is not currently used. Hakka references are added automatically, no need to save them.
3. Old Chinese and Middle Chinese - you can try |oc=y and |mc=y in the preview. It may work, if there is data on the source sites.
4. In the converted pages, please use {{zh-noun}}, etc. , not {{cmn-noun}} |mw= paramater is still working but it's the only parameter you need.
5. Ideally, on ts (trad. and simpl.) pages the usexes should be in traditional script, the module will automatically provide both traditional and simplified.
6. No need for "translingual" definitions and Middle Chinese sections, they go into "Chinese".
7. I've now learned a bit how to add Wu, let me know if you're interested. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also, very important, don't leave cat= empty in {{zh-pron}}, otherwise, the term won't be added to Category:Chinese nouns, Category:Mandarin nouns, etc. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've just come to a weird (but serendipitous) conclusion about the Hakka "POJ" readings that I added before the creation of the unified "Chinese" we now have. It appears they aren't POJ at all but are indeed Phak-fa-su (PFS)! I just did a fairly thorough comparison of the hakka.fhl.net readings and those now at the minhakka.ling.sinica.edu.tw site. The weird thing is, they've changed the dictionary at minhakka.ling.sinica.edu.tw to use a different romanization system (POJ, it looks like); it used to use the same dictionary that is currently at the hakka.fhl.net site (same database and search fields, even). So the Hakka readings I added are the same as those from the hakka.fhl.net site but are simply being called by the wrong romanization name. Bumm13 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. Good points
2. Okay, I was unaware of the hakka.fhl.net site for Hakka readings.
3. I'm not really doing anything right now regarding Old Chinese and Middle Chinese, I might try later though.
4. Okay, will do.
5. Ah, okay. Hopefully that's the case.
6. Again, I only left the "Middle Chinese" section because it had some information in it and I'm not currently messing with Middle Chinese right now (trying to get this other stuff done!)
7. I've been interested in Wu for some time. I'll look into adding Wu readings probably in the near future. Bumm13 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for answering, you can reply on your take page, otherwise the discussion is split. #3 - you don't NEED TO DO anything for Old Chinese and Middle Chinese, let the template worry but since you're converting, adding =y might work for both, remove one or both if you get an error. (Only required for traditional characters, as far as I know). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your recent work! The existing Middle Chinese sections can all be removed and replaced by |mc=y in the pronunciation template. Wyang (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you from me as well. Could I ask you to focus on the most frequent characters first? e.g. Appendix:HSK list of Mandarin words/Beginning Mandarin and Appendix:Mandarin Frequency lists/1-1000? Also, me and Wyang think "translingual" shouldn't have definitions, just character related info. It's probably a good idea to remove them and/or move to Chinese. As for Chinese Wu, I use ], Wiktionary:About Chinese/Wu and some other off-line resources. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you've removed Wade–Giles system when you converted various sections into unified "Chinese" section. It should be included in my opinion as many Taiwanese transcribe their legal names in the Wade–Giles system. Without it, I think Wiktionary would become a less useful tool for many Taiwanese and those who visit Taiwan. Oreopie (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not removed - it's in collapsed view. See for example 慠#Pronunciation. Click on "Expand". Wyang (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please unify the Chinese sections at 末 like you did at 未? Thanks in advance!

By the way, Appendix:Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction is really helpful! From the code at Module:ltc-pron, I understand that the various Middle Chinese reconstructions can be converted into each other when the correspondences between the reconstructions of the initials and finals are known, and same for Old Chinese. Once all the characters in the list have a pronunciation box including the reconstructed ancient pronunciations, Wiktionary is really useful for students of Chinese. Makes Sinology really appear less overwhelming and daunting. It would also be cool to add the supra-dialectal w:General Chinese to the transcriptions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done! :) Bumm13 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused, I thought the Chinese header was only allowed for single character entries, and Mandarin, Cantonese (etc.) is always used for multi-character entries. Can you please confirm this? I'm asking you just because yours is the first name I saw in the recent changes. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

亜 is Japanese specific (shinjitai) and shouldn't have Chinese or Korean sections either. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know. It's an artifact of earlier bot edits (I know the Unihan database gives Chinese and Korean readings for Japanese-specific (shinjitai) characters). Bumm13 (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your conversions to Chinese but your entries lack definitions - translations into English. Maybe you can try using {{zh-new}}. It's not hard to use and may also pick up Cantonese, Min Nan and Hakka readings. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the translation is unknown, it would make sense to leave {{defn|lang=zh}} (or "lang=cmn" as in the existing entries), so that others could find entries needing definitions. What do you think?--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please don't ignore me, entries without definitions should, at least have this:

===Definitions===
# {{rfdef|lang=zh}}

As in 尒 :). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the delayed response. Okay, I'll probably just use the /rfdef/ template solution for now. It's getting harder to tackle all these different changes manually but I'll do the best I can to follow the new formatting methods. Bumm13 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks from me too. Just a note: if there are senses in the Translingual section, those can be moved to the Definitions section in Chinese, and no /rfdef/ template is necessary. Translingual shouldn't contain definitions. Wyang (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

How come you use {{vi-readings}} instead of {{vi-hantu}}? Category:Vietnamese Han characters is more in line with categories such as Category:Japanese Han characters than Category:Vietnamese Han tu, as far as I could tell. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was under the assumption that {{vi-readings}} had superceded the use of {{vi-hantu}}. I was unaware of them adding different (but not both) categories that you mentioned. Perhaps the two templates should be merged? This would be best discussed in one of the wiktionary discussion rooms. Bumm13 (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you want my opinion about the two templates, I think that vi-readings should be relegated to the pronunciation section and stripped of its ability to add the entry to Category:Vietnamese Han tu (which I think should be abolished in favor of Category:Vietnamese Han characters), while vi-hantu stays. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can have a look at the following character to get an idea of what I'm typing and talking about: 㓟. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Instead of revising the individual Cantonese and Mandarin sections, what if you were to create a Chinese section and then edit that to your liking? If there is a reason for the way you do it, then I apologize. --WikiWinters (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks for asking! I edit the articles the way I do because if I try to start by unifying the separate Cantonese and Mandarin sections into the unified Chinese section, it slows me way down. I confess to having a set way of doing things, but another consideration is time. There are 20,941 single-character CJKV word entries on wiktionary and anything that slows me down even a little bit is detrimental to our goals. That said, I do spend time unifying separate sections in Chinese word entries from time to time but it works better if I do those separately (at a separate time). Hope this clarifies things a bit! Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unicode does have a K source though for this character, is this good enough of a reason to keep it? —suzukaze (t・c) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Without additional sources, probably not. It seems that the Unihan Database has quite a few Korean-sourced characters that happen to be mainland Chinese simplifications. I really doubt they were used as hanja in previous times. I don't consider myself to be the final authority on such things, but I've seen some unusual sourcing for characters in general at times in the Unihan Database. Bumm13 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This entry needs cleanup, and I thought you'd be the best person to do it. I would, but it looks like you have a uniform way of doing it that seems to have worked well. Thanks. --WikiWinters (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There you go! :) Bumm13 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seems like you normally don't place {{zh-hanzi}} under the Chinese > Definitions header; is there any particular reason for this? —suzukaze (t・c) 10:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't have a good answer to your question. When not adding actual definition entries, I use {{rfdef}} under the Chinese > Definitions header instead (as suggested by Anatoli). Not sure if it's relevant, but I also found where there had been a discussion as to whether or not {{zh-hanzi}} should be deleted. Anyway, I'm sorry I couldn't give you a better answer, maybe asking one of the more technically knowledgeable users on the site would help. Bumm13 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It looks like it is okay to use, so there is no need to remove it from entries. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Although zh-hanzi has little practical value, it is a part of the standard entry format. Could you please stop omitting it?—suzukaze (t・c) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The use of headword templates is not optional and they do have practical use - display and categorisation.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

diff, diff. ? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reading these messages. I really appreciate it. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any thoughts? —suzukaze (t・c) 08:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to put wikilinks in IDS. (User:Kennybot actually recently went and removed a majority of them) —suzukaze (t・c) 00:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason to remove the Japanese section related to kanji that are not hyōgaiji. Examples of unreasonable removals include 滞 and 俣, which neither is hyōgaiji. Eyesnore (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have long since stopped removing Japanese sections for non-hyōgaiji kanji entries; thank you for restoring the Japanese sections for those articles. Bumm13 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is it really wise to remove this section though? When I added the unified Chinese section I intentionally avoided removing those sections because I wasn't sure how to incorporate the information under ==Chinese== (the distinction between the two pronunciations seems to be lost in modern Chinese). —suzukaze (t・c) 23:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I figured this message/notification was regarding this matter. If the specific information isn't addressed in the Middle Chinese/Old Chinese drop-down infoboxes, then it's probably fine to re-add those sections. In general, we're avoiding separate Old Chinese and Middle Chinese sections now that we have those infoboxes but like anything else, special cases can exist. It'd be interesting to get Atitarev's opinion on this (or Wyang, except he's busy much of the time and away from wiktionary). Bumm13 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you try to avoid merging Unihan/translingual definitions into language sections? Many of the glosses tend to be bizarre or inappropriate extensions or misinterpretations that distort meanings. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

...as in 丏, where at least two references say "hidden from view" and not "invisible". —suzukaze (t・c) 12:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Much of the work I do here is as much about cleaning up formatting as getting "perfect" (or, as you put it earlier, "non-bizarre" definitions (in regards to glosses). I know a lot about CJKV languages and the writing system, but I am not fluent in any of the individual languages. Much of my editing is simply reformatting what was originally provided by the Unihan database. It doesn't do any good to tell me about each individual definition that might be slightly off; "invisible" is not that much different from "hidden from view" (literally not visible from a specific viewpoint). I am simply working with what is already in these articles when I make the formatting changes. If you think a specific definition is incorrect, then feel free to simply fix it but don't imply that definitions that come from the Unihan database are errors that I have introduced into these CJKV articles. Bumm13 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please do not think that I believe that the definitions are your mistakes. I simply believe that it is best to leave them in Translingual as they come from an untrustworthy source; moving them to Chinese would only make inaccuracies seem more legitimate than they are. 丏 was an example. —suzukaze (t・c) 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

What data are you using? Lots of common/basic characters are missing. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to get the entries started, I'm using the Jyutping Database along with the Unihan Database. I'm fully aware that each individual entry needs all possible (known) readings added; this is just to get the entries themselves started. Bumm13 (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, just making sure. Because I've encountered similarly lacking entries in the past and wondered why on earth this weird character x is listed, and not common character y... —suzukaze (t・c) 07:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if you could help out with dealing with the hanzi on User:Jberkel/L2-header-label-mismatch/20160203, as a good number of them seem to be the result of your edits. It's a list where {{lb}}'s language does not match the ==Language== header (such as using lb|lang=cmn under Chinese or Translingual). —suzukaze (t・c) 21:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Korean sections are still present in Chinese simplified characters (寿, 宝, 励, 潜, 触), as well as in Japanese shinjitai (労, 廃, 聴, 担, 穂). Should they be kept or removed because the Korean sections are irrelevant? You have been doing this a lot lately, removing certain Korean sections in simplified Chinese and Japanese shinjitai. Eyesnore (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Wiktionary could be going a change on the Han characters, removing the irrelevant sections on simplified forms in Chinese and Japanese (introduced in 2003 by a bot). Eyesnore (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Those type of Korean sections absolutely need to be removed. And yes, they were added by a bot many years ago (the Unihan database has different goals than Wiktionary, so we don't include everything that their individual character entries include. Bumm13 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the current {{zh-pron}} template does not understand the romanization from the Hakka-English Dictionary (客英字典) or Hagfa Pinyim. Both use a different dialect of Hakka (not Siyen, as given in the IPA). You should do not add those readings to entries until the template can process them. If you want to find Hakka readings in the PFS we currently support, use this dictionary, which is the only online dictionary (other than Wiktionary, of course) that uses PFS. Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Please add Middle Chinese pronunciations of the word "嗅". 206.180.244.235 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no data for Middle Chinese. Pinging @Wyang just in case. @Bumm13, a friendly reminder - |cat= should be populated with v, n, etc. (parts of speech). Otherwise, Chinese entries won't categorise correctly!--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Example? I'm not finding a recent entry lacking parts of speech information. Bumm13 (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, sorry. I thought the IP referred to your edit but it wasn't. Thanks for your contributions!--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added the MC pronunciation. 嗅 was not found in Guangyun. It was written as 齅 or 臭. Wyang (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, where did you get the Min Nan readings for 赫 (especially niah, which looks a bit dubious)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I got the readings here. I was kind of wondering about the second reading, myself. Those readings are also used at the Min Nan Wiktionary. Bumm13 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I also found niah in this dictionary. I've split the pronunciations at 赫 accordingly. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm not sure if this is right. You did use the links as references. Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Further_reading: This section is not meant to prove the validity of what is being stated on the Wiktionary entries. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay; I was only going by what the Wiktionary site news update said. If you don't think it's all that relevant to single-character CJKV entries, I'll go back to using "References" for those headings. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Instead of copying Unihan's text/formatting verbatim, could you use {{zh-see}} (or at least {{alternative form of}}) in accordance with policy on Chinese entries / Wiktionary's standard entry layout? Thanks. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you at least respond? I don't want this to become like last time with {{zh-hanzi}}. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not responding earlier. I actually completely agree with your earlier comment. I was merely (well, somewhat) returning the article to how it had been before your edit. After some research, I found out that having two {{zh-see}} templates was appropriate for that article so I reverted my edits back to your version. :-) Bumm13 (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about this, but about this. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

and this —suzukaze (t・c) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please go find another editor to micromanage. Thanks Bumm13 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Listen, I really appreciate your work on combining Cantonese/Mandarin hanzi entries into Chinese entries, but not using {{zh-see}} results in an unnecessary duplication of information in which one of the copies is inferior (which is why we already redirect simplified Chinese spellings to the traditional spellings). I don't mean to harass you and I apologize if it seems like I am. If you won't use {{zh-see}}, at least tell me why you think # (same as x) ... is better. —suzukaze (t・c) 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you misunderstand. I do use {{zh-see}} when I can reasonably determine that one character (or character etymology) is a variant of another. But some characters have an odd mix of readings (some clearly of a variant character but others not so clearly, i.e., don't match the other character based on our information) and that makes it difficult for the non-expert (in this case, me) to know whether using {{zh-see}} is correct or not. Many of the characters in Extension A have really messy or confusing information that makes matching/linking them to other character articles (as variants) difficult. I'd rather err on the side of caution in those cases rather than add incorrect information to those articles, so my focus is on formatting first then fixing errors when I'm confident about the information I'm dealing with. Hope this clarifies things a bit. Bumm13 (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where did you go for a month? Oh I was watching you all the time, all the time. Are you okay? Are you on holiday/vacation? Equinox ◑ 00:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox -- I haven't been editing wiktionary as much lately, alas. I'd like to get back to doing more editing but I always seem to get distracted by other things (or too tired). I'm always on IRC if you want to chat! :) Bumm13 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

xox Equinox ◑ 08:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when using this template, please make use of the 2nd parameter instead of putting this template in brackets. Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is the second parameter of the template? I don't see any documentation for this template anywhere. Bumm13 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The second parameter is the same as in {{zh-l}}. It guesses whether it is a gloss or a transliteration. It would be a gloss in your case. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bumm, long time no see. I just wanted to remind you about the convention with {{zh-only}} — I saw your edit to 焥, and you can see that someone else came along afterward to fix it to use the 2nd parameter. It's an uphill battle, but we try hard to keep things standardised. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just as a reminder, when you know that a character is a variant of another one (i.e. non-classical form), please remember to use {{zh-see}}. It allows such entries to be automatically detected and is one of the ways we keep our character entries maximally machine-readable. Of course, there will be cases where it can be difficult to determine (although checking references besides the Unihan data can help), but in general, we'd like to keep things consistent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge:If you're referring to my most recent edits (last hour or two), keep in mind that I am mostly here to do low-level formatting tasks. Unless I know with very strong certainty that I'm dealing with a variant form, I won't use {{zh-see}}. Extension A characters are often harder to find sources showing that said characters are actual variant forms of other characters. Hope this clears things up! Bumm13 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I get that, but on characters like 㜸, your prose indicates a variant form, so the key is just using the standard formatting so that the information gets centralised appropriately. If you need more sources, by the way, people who have much better Chinese than me can suggest some (though they're usually in Mandarin, of course, but it's generally not too hard to wade through them). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, but the definitions were not my prose; they date back to when the old NanshuBot added those entries years ago (thus from the Unihan database). I don't blindly trust anything from the Unihan database, that's why I only indicate variant forms when I'm very sure of such a thing. Bumm13 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you're not sure, then it's better not to move the Unihan definitions produced by NanshuBot to the Chinese section and leave it with {{rfdef}}. That way, it'd be easier for other editors to pick up on it. Also, having something like "(non-classical form of X)" only on the first definition line of a multi-definition entry is likely a mistake of blindly parsing semicolons. The thing in parentheses usually applies to the entire list of definitions in Unihan. Of course, you are right in being careful with Unihan definitions, so for things like this, I'd recommend checking other sources like 教育部異體字字典. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please include {{character info}} at the top (i.e. before the Translingual section) on any single character entries you make. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will do! Bumm13 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bohai is not in Hebei. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just noticed that you added Hakka pronunciations in Chinese character entries back in 2013, but I noticed that at least some of them have wrong PFS pronunciation. So far I've found 至 and 皮 but there might be more. Just wanted to let you know, maybe you could help look for them. That's all. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi - are you getting these Cantonese pronunciations from Unicode? If so, please could you remove them? We have a lot of issues with Unicode pronunciations being wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Many of the Cantonese pronunciations are from Unicode (for Extension A); I do use other online sources/dictionaries as well (Multi-function Chinese Character Database and sometimes the Jyutping Database). I would not knowingly add incorrect Cantonese readings to the Chinese (single-character) articles. Bumm13 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm reasonably sure that the Jyutping Database and Unicode have the same readings in every case. It might be best to not add them if they only appear there. Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jyuting Database is fine. Unicode is more prone to error and should not be used as a source for Cantonese pronunciation. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: After thinking things over, I went back and removed Cantonese readings from four articles I edited earlier. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please use {{Jyutping-IPA}} (or {{yue-IPA}} I created recently, which should eventually replace the other one since it has error checking), instead of {{IPA|yue}}. Also, you can refer to Special:WhatLinksHere/template:tracking/yue-pron/si1 for the list of characters have |c=si1 in its pronunciation box(es) (this ignores the original tone in characters with tone changes), instead of trying to come up with the list every time yourself.

There should be quite a bit more entries than the ones you've listed in the user subpages. I can generate a list of links to all the possible entries if you want. (including ones that don't have any characters with that pronunciation, but it should be better than trying to list them but accidentally skipping some in the process) Please also note that I have been recently adding not-so-standard new entries with vowels , which aren't a lot, but please keep them in mind.

For some of the older entries (including ones that are not created by you), there are some erroneous ones from the Unihan database, such as 厂 on aa1, they should be removed. (i.e. using the list in whatlinkshere is sufficient) I think the best way to approach this is to go through the list of Jyutping entries back from the start and make these changes accordingly. (We could split the job in some way maybe?) Thanks a lot! – Wpi31 (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply