User talk:Dokurrat/Archive 1

A note to myself: Remember to be polite here. Dokurrat (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been busy with my real life and I may not be able to reply your message. Muah~ Dokurrat (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wiktionary. If you have any questions feel free to ask me or any of the other Chinese language contributors. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dokurrat! Thanks for your edits so far! Just a few things to keep in mind:

• The Definitions header is only used on monosyllablic entries (single characters). Entries for polysyllabic words need part-of-speech headers.
• The standard pronunciation in Taiwan is slightly confusing. I recommend you check 兩岸詞典 (on moedict or its original website) and 國語辭典簡編本 for actual standard pronunciation. 重編國語辭典修訂本 has many "non-standard" pronunciations because its focus is mostly for historical/literary reference. Question 3 should clear things up for you.

Anyway, hope this helps you, and enjoy editing! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Roger. Thank you. ^_^ Dokurrat (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Looking forward to your edits! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think it might be more appropriate to call them morphemes (smallest unit of meaning). If you call them disyllabic lemmas, then any two-character word would be included even though it might be a compound of two morphemes. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Yes, I realized this only after my action. 😂 It's just a temporary operation; I am still thinking a name now. Dokurrat (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung How about “Category:Chinese polysyllabic monomorphemic lemmas” ? Dokurrat (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Or could we just use the Chinese name, i.e. lianmianci, akin to Category:Chinese chengyu? It's pretty much a Chinese-only concept, so I think that's an appropriate name. @Wyang, Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, any better ideas for the category name? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think "Chinese disyllabic morphemes" is fine. Definitely not "Chinese polysyllabic monomorphemic lemmas"... Also, this needs to be integrated into Module:zh-cat ({{zh-cat}}) so that it is properly sorted. Wyang (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Chinese morphemic polysyllable" 😂 I actually don't mind "Chinese disyllabic morphemes"; I was just surprised to see there are only bound morphemes in "Category:Chinese morphemes" and "Category:English morphemes". Dokurrat (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I repopulated Category:Chinese disyllabic morphemes using {{zh-cat|Disyllabic}}. 😀 Wyang (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit. I am not sure what you mean by fake spread words; fake rumour. This is not grammatical English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Because after looking multiple dictionaries, I think 謠言 and rumour may be potentially different; rumour may be either fake or real; yet 謠言 is either "not fact-based" (Xiandai Hanyu Cidian: 没有事实根据的消息) or "fabricated" . But i don't really mind this if you want to revert. Dokurrat (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have added additional translations to that effect. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic You're welcome. Dokurrat (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I still think the translations do not really capture the nuances of this word. It may be better to explain rather than try to match with English equivalents. 謠言 is always fallacious and fabricated, and often spread with a malicious intent, and the word carries a strong negative tone to it. The equivalent of rumour in Chinese is 傳言. Wyang (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

slander? —suzukaze (t・c) 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not quite as well. 謠言 refers to a common misbelief, based on a collective negative attitude towards something (such as a groundless rumour about the government circulating in a population). Slander seems more targeted and severe. Wyang (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain the Classical Chinese usage, "to guard the life"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it may be referring to the sense of "養生；保護生命" in Hanyu Da Cidian. Wyang (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@tooironic Yes, I was referring to that sense. Dokurrat (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what the nuance of that is? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@tooironic No, I don't. Dokurrat (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic You can take a look at this. I think it's more like "to maintain good health". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Hmmm... So I removed my edit. Dokurrat (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think your addition was wrong. We could keep it, but tweak the wording a bit. I'm not sure if I'm understanding the definition and quotations correctly. You're probably better at Classical Chinese than I. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung You can add back / modify it if you want. Dokurrat (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! When you create a new entry, please leave the Edit Summary box empty. Then we can see the actual contents of the page in Recent Changes, so it's easier to patrol and to understand what was created. Equinox ◑ 23:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Okay! Dokurrat (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. (By the way, from this talk page I can see your English proficiency is above en-1! But maybe you're modest. Heheh.) Equinox ◑ 00:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox You're welcome. 😁 Dokurrat (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I would recommend {{subst:zh-n}} to create new entries. It does the formatting for you and automatically gets pronunciation information for Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka and Min Nan. If you have any questions on how to use that template, feel free to ask other editors, including myself. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Okay ! Dokurrat (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the etymology for this entry? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Because I don't think 怪裡怪氣 is the source. Dokurrat (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems pretty obvious to me. What else would it be? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I added the etymology. Wyang (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Wyang. I just thought that a relation to 怪裡怪氣 would be most likely considering the alliteration. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does it have to be in 通用规范汉字表 to be considered "standard"? If 通用规范汉字表 doesn't address it, couldn't we just consider 類推 simplified forms as "standard"? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: I have no courage to call them don't consider them standard as they are not given official status. Dokurrat (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

But we don't even call them standard; it's just an implied "standard". On the other hand, if we call it "nonstandard", I guess we are informing users that it's not official, but I think it might be giving them an impression that the simplified form should not be used at all. Perhaps we should modify {{zh-forms}} to include something similar to the case of unofficial shinjitai ("extended shinjitai"), but I'm not sure what to call them. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Okay. Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what's wrong with the previous version of the file. 㐄 and 𡕒 are the same character. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Because it doesn't make sense. You can revert my edit if you like. Dokurrat (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

What in particular doesn't make sense? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung:There're two 㐄's in my mind. One, the 㐄 which is typo/variant of 𡕒; the other one, a non-morphemic glyph 㐄 used in compound characters. I just feel bad seeing the typo/variant 㐄 speak up to "overwrite" the glyph history of the compound glyph 㐄. I think this may be misleading. Maybe such judgement is called prescriptivity. Dokurrat (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me an example where 㐄 is used in compounds? I can't find any. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: 韋 / 韦 (wéi), 舛 (chuǎn). (I made a mistake here). But the glyph composition isn't explicitly mentioned by Shuo Wen, and I think this issue is blur and vague. Dokurrat (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's unrelated and doesn't exist as a character AFAIK. It's from flipping 夂. I'll revert back to the previous version. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Okay. But they are not flipping 夂's, at least visually. Dokurrat (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Oh, I get what you meant. They are flipping 夊's. Dokurrat (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I knew it was one or the other. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please considering reverting your edit. Sexually explicit is the common collocation in English. Obscene only covers extreme or hardcore content. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Here's what I've thought. The concept "sexually explicit" (性露骨), which is an euphemistic (?) term referring to pornography, virtually does not exsit in Chinese in my observation. Describe 淫穢 as "erotic" seems problematic too. Erotic can be a neutral word; yet 淫穢 is a strong, critical word. Dokurrat (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're wrong. Explicit can be used to describe anything that has adult content - it doesn't refer exclusively to pornography (e.g. an M-rated movie can be considered explicit without being pornographic). It is used with about the same flexibility as 淫穢 in Chinese (much like 很黃很暴力). Obscene is much too strong a word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: You're right 'bout what makes being explicit. And I'm okay with reverting. But I'm still a bit concerned about the sense. 淫穢 carries a "sexually dirty" sense, which i don't expect in "sexually expllicity". Dokurrat (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Since we mentioned movie. Assume there's a movie. It has scenes of sexual intercouse. I think, as long as the movie has aesthetical or artisic or scientific value, and lay stress on story-telling rather than being an arousal stimuli. Then it is being sexually explicit yet not 淫穢. Therefore I'm concerned about the potential meaning difference between "sexually explicit" and "淫穢". Dokurrat (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in here... My impression is that 淫穢 is only used to describe items, videos, photos and other things that are sexually explicit, basically to the extent that it is illegal and is what the police would seize in a search. Its use carries with it a strongly negative, disapproving, and perhaps officialese tone. I think "obscene" is an appropriate translation, and so is "sexually explicit", as long as there is a tag saying "derogatory" or "disapproving", and a tag of "usually of videos, photos and other items". Wyang (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think these are really etymologies. 分化字 are not necessarily 同源字. This kind of thing should be mentioned under glyph origin, unless you are sure they are the same word, in which case you probably say "cognate with" or "from". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Okay! So, in which way should we write this piece of infomation? like this? ===Glyph origin===Variant of {{l|zh|倡}}. Dokurrat (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why can't it just be in {{zh-forms}} as an alt form? Is that not enough? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Okay... You can do this if you would like to. Dokurrat (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you could turn on the aWa gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to make archiving RFV/RFD discussions easier. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Ah, merci ! Dokurrat (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

De rien ! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You need to remove the sense/entry if RFV has failed (風船, 人種差別). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please do not invent headers without consensus. It creates a big mess without it being that useful. (Not to mention "splitted" isn't grammatical.) We generally use {{zh-attn-split}} for such situations. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, don't forget the cat= parameter in {{zh-pron}}. This is how entries are categorized into the parts of speech based on the topolects. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Ough. Does my previous mode of behavior seems acceptable? , at least no nonstandard headers. I still wish unseperated pronunciations can be left alone. Dokurrat (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's acceptable either. Just comment them out and put {{zh-attn-split}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Okay. Dokurrat (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Instead of using IDS or □, maybe the characters could be created at GlyphWiki and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: I just couldn't figure out how to use Glyphwiki (yet)... Well at least I managed to make one glyph's svg at Citations:与 ... — This unsigned comment was added by Dokurrat (talk • contribs).

I could try making them if you'd like. (Also, I hope you get better soon.) —suzukaze (t・c) 02:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: You can try making them if you'd like. And thank you. Dokurrat (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is this the ISO 639-6 code for Beijing Mandarin? Just curious, since I can't find a list of 4-letter codes anywhere. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: There are still lots of Chinese Wikipedia articles that have these codes, like the one for Beijing Mandarin. There used to be a database here, but that's been broken for around 5 years. Since 2014, ISO 639-6 has been withdrawn and shouldn't be used. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Thanks! Yes, I know it's been withdrawn, which is why I wondered how Dokurrat found this code. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've seen you remove glosses from glyph origin sections, like at 沒. I think we can keep them there, just to have an idea of what the character was originally referring to. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Roger. (I still keep my opinion though). Dokurrat (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's often useful to know what the original meaning of the character is. It's not explicitly in the glyph, but it's useful information that should not be removed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: (1) I think such "original meaning" is often a difficult idea. How do we know if it is original or not? (2) I don't see the reason to include the original meaning in glyph origin section. If it has some reasons, then I can based on the same reasons to write glyph origin for English entries, which is obviously unnecessary. Dokurrat (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: It's okay to give original or early meaning in Glyph origin of 象形, 指事, 會意 characters, since their glyphs are related to their meanings, whether the intended meaning is still used or lost. But I don't think it a good idea to give original meaning to 形聲 characters in Glyph origin. Dokurrat (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

For 形聲 characters, I think we can work with what the earliest attestations are. Shuowen may be useful in these cases, but we should look to more reliable sources that consider the ancient artefacts like oracle bone and bronze inscriptions. An obvious example of glosses for 形聲 characters is with chemical elements that "revive" an ancient character. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: I think I can accept glosses for 形聲 characters in Glyph origin section for chemical elements that "revive" an ancient character. Dokurrat (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think our modules are ready for Harbin. Although it's phonologically similar to standard Chinese, it's tones are slightly different (e.g. 44 instead of 55 for the first tone). Do you think this needs to be fixed? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Well.... Maybe I màojìn le. Shìde, Harbin variant of Dongbei Mandain and MSC differ in phonetic realization of tones. Shìde, it of course should be fixed. Unfortunately I cannot write Lua code... Dokurrat (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: And sometimes it can be more complex. For example, 撇拉 (piěla) The “gāda” pronunciation of 疙瘩 (gēda), used in both Beijing dialect and Harbin dialect, which only need one pinyin, but two IPAs... Dokurrat (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it's worth making a new parameter for NE Mandarin (Harbin)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: A new "parameter"? Like how Sichuanese is dealed now in Wiktionary? I think a seperate IPA should be sufficient. (By the way, I quèshí do not zhǐwàng anyone to fix this, because I know everyone's jīnglì (精力) is precious.) Dokurrat (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let's just leave it as something in mind then. When I have more time, I might work on it. The module for Mandarin still has a lot of fixing to do... — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: OK. Dokurrat (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Well. I now think it's worth making a new parameter for Northeastern Mandarin. Since the mainstream liguistics treat NE Mandarin and BJ Mandarin seperately. We should present academic views, rather than my - Dokurrat's - personal feelings. Not only my gut feelings are not a reliable vehicle, but also I have never investigated & researched BJ Mandarin and NE Mandarin.
At the beginning, I've been editing some cases in which words or morphemes have the same pinyin spelling for their BJ Mandarin pronunciations and NE Mandarin ones. But as I keep on editing, I found some cases each Mandarin has a pronunciation that is odd or not found at all to each other. Like 扔 (Beijing dialect: rēng; Harbin dialect: lēng), 國 (Harbin dialect: guǒ, which sounds very odd at least to me), 肉 (Beijing dialect: ròu, Harbin dialect: yòu). It would be very odd if BJ Mandarin and NE Mandarin only use one parameter in zh-pron. Dokurrat (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll try to work on the module later. In the meantime, should we remove the NE pronunciations we currently have? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: (1) Oh, I'm not forcing you to do any work; You can just leave it as something in mind like you've said. (2) Should we remove the NE pronunciations we currently have? I don't know for now. And if you'd like to remove, I don't mind and I can help. Dokurrat (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to WT:About Chinese/tasks so whoever wants to work on it can do so. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Okay. Dokurrat (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have created this variable to prevent entries from displayed in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/zh-forms/no gloss found for Chinese character (See point 4 of Wiktionary:About_Chinese/tasks).--Zcreator (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator: Thanks for letting me know this. I'm a Muggle at coding. Dokurrat (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang, Justinrleung Would you like to examine my draft w:User:Dokurrat/Beijing Mandarin (dialectology) w:Beijing Mandarin (dialectology)? Dokurrat (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I will do some edits on the page, if you don't mind. Wyang (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: I don't mind at all! Dokurrat (talk)

@Wyang: And, when I publish this article to main space, your pseudonym would be mentioned for credit in edit summary for your edit ;) Dokurrat (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: Well, 我真没考虑这个署名的问题. I think I should publish my draft first and you can edit in article name space. I think this is more fair. I'll do it now as you didn't edit for now. Dokurrat (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: I published my article at w:Beijing Mandarin (dialectology). Dokurrat (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

你太客气了，其实没有关系的。我把它移到了... (division of Mandarin)，因为北京话本身也是汉语方言学的概念。我本来想把你的用户子页涂得一团糟的，现在只能克制自己了 ;) Wyang (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: 我也觉得你的移动更合理。哈哈。Dokurrat (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've finished reading it, and made some changes on the page. It's late where I am now, so I mainly looked at the grammar side of the article. Great work overall! Here are my suggestions and comments:

• Li Rong's 1985 and 1987 papers need to be directly cited;
• “approximate to Beijing dialect” ― I'm not sure I fully understood that sentence. What is the original text for ″approximate″? Encompassing, geographically close, or something else?
• The map is inaccurate; perhaps better changed/removed.

Wyang (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I took a quick read of the article, and it's pretty good! I've made some minor changes as well. @Wyang, Li (1987) is not quite a paper, but a chapter in the 1987 edition of the Language Atlas of China. It is republished in Fangyan in 1989. I think the original text for "approximate to Beijing dialect" is "北京官话区以最接近于北京话得名"; it's probably talking about linguistic proximity. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang, Justinrleung: Thank you! @Wyang, I now find direct citation for Li Rong's 1985 paper. As for “approximate to Beijing dialect”, Justingrleung has posted Li's original text, 我觉得李荣原本就是没说是哪方面的“接近”. As for the map, I'm not good at drawing maps, so if you'd like to remove it, I'm okay and go ahead. Dokurrat (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: I removed the map. Dokurrat (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Great minds think alike--I was about to delete that so-called 'literal meaning' for 無精打采. I think whoever wrote that definition thought '采' meant 'gather up'. Also, I just discovered that the 采 in 興高采烈 & 無精打采\没精打采 is probably derived from the following definition given for 采: "精神;神色" (現代漢語詞典7 pg.119). Based on this, I feel that the little grey boxes above each character on those pages which say that 采 means 'allotment to a feudal noble; affairs; gather' are somewhat misleading in this context: shouldn't it say 'spirit' or something like that, based on the "精神;神色" definition? How can I change the definitions given in the little grey boxes above the character 采? Thanks for your time! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: I think you can use {{zh-forms|s=无精打采|alt=無精打彩|4=spirit}}. Dokurrat (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I really enjoyed your contributions on the 氢 page. If you have the time, please take a look at my change to the glyph origin of 奠. According to what I read, 奠 is a pictograph (not an ideogrammic compound like we had before). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: Yeah, I agree that it is a pictogram. And I made a bit of modification there. Dokurrat (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dokurrat: cool, thanks --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: You're welcome. Dokurrat (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi: can you help me for a second? I can't understand why there are two Chinese 黃岡 links in the wikipedia link box on the right hand side of this page. Can you help me figure out why this is this way? Thanks for any help! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I see where the error was. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: You're welcome. Dokurrat (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because 嗯 is a modern day character, you added |no_och2=1 so that the ancient Chinese would not be shown. I see that now. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I also noticed that (beyond 𥄨 being selected as the simplified character for 瞅 in the second round), this character was/is an yitizi of 瞅 (Xiandai Hanyu Cidian Ed 7 pg 187). How should this kind of situation be dealt with? I'm sure it will come up again, for instance with the selection of 仃 as the simplified form of 停 in the second round.

Proof 𥄨 was selected as the simplified form of 瞅 in the second round: on page 2 near the bottom of the first column from the left of the （1）不作简化偏旁的简化字 part of the 第一表 list in the Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft), you can see the character 𥄨 paired with 瞅 (the characters are ordered in alphabetical order by pinyin).

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: Okay, I tried a lengthy solution. I guess we should be both happy now. :-) Dokurrat (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found a similar situation and used your wording on that page: 答. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added the info about the former zhuo1 pronunciation of 卓. Rationale: 1、I have heard people use this pronunciation. 2、The second round of the 审音表初稿 in 1959 had the pronunciation as zhuo1 ("卓(姓) zhuō" 中国语文 总第85 July 1959 普通話异讀詞审音表初稿（續） Page 322). 3、现代汉语词典试用本 pg1360 (1977) gives only one pronunciation for 卓: zhuo1. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dokurrat: @Wyang: @Justinrleung: My goal for the Category:Triplicated Chinese characters is to get ALL the CJKV characters (or maybe only Chinese characters?) that are purely a triplication of one component into the group. In some cases, this may or may not be directly connected to glyph origin. Maybe the triplication information should be moved elsewhere on the page, not sure. Thanks for checking my work! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Giving up on 巛 as a Category:Triplicated Chinese character for now; it is kind of an edge-case because it's a triplication of a wavy line. I can't really find the correct symbol that it is a duplication of (closest thing seems like 〈 or <). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: Here is what I've thought. I don't mind categorizing the entries that you think belongs to Category:Triplicated Chinese characters, but for 叒, 巛, 彡 and many other characters, that is not their glyph origins. So I don't think I would like to include them in the glyph origin section. Dokurrat (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: I altered the glyph origin sections in some entries. The categorizations are kept. Dokurrat (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will do it that way from now on if I can't find a specific connection to glyph origin. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative please use {{zh-cat|Triplicated}} so that it can be combined with other Chinese categories and properly sorted. Wyang (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

noted --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Is "Variants" a valid header for Chinese entries Wiktionary? I've never seen it before. How does it vary from "Alternative forms"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Oh... If it is not a valid header, I'm okay to put them together in alt forms. The three forms currently in alt forms are homophonic with 慫恿, while I think 縱臾 and 縱踴 may not be homophonic with 慫恿, but have similar pronunciation(s) instead. Dokurrat (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. Pinging @Wyang, @Justinrleung. See if they can help. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just created 脫褲子放屁 / 脱裤子放屁 (tuō kùzi fàngpì), which I added a variants section too. We can discuss about this too if you think it necessary. Dokurrat (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic, Dokurrat Variants is definitely not a valid header as of now. I think it can be under synonyms or alternative forms, depending on how different they are. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: I think I would prefer using alt form for both cases. And I've edited these two entries. Dokurrat (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I know you want the translations to be as accurate as possible, but I think you're overly 執着 about it. 洗澡 is commonly translated as "to take a shower" - why do you think it's wrong? "Wash oneself" is really awkward in English - sounds like French se laver, which is not at all awkward in French. I think it can be translated as "eat something, take a shower/bath and have some rest". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply