User talk:Wpi

Please put new messages at the bottom

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.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Apisite (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

For moving the translations to subpages. That solution probably makes more sense for the country/city pages. I assumed the problem was all the {{place}} invocations and didn't even think to check that... 98.170.164.88 11:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

混話 Sense ? Nonsense? Shall we ask her, she usually do answer questions? Thank you. [1]https://forvo.com/word/%E6%B7%B7%E8%A9%B1/#yue
PS: I'd love to hear a regional antonym too, similar to (Guangzhou, Jyutping): jin4 [賢[]] which I already have. Can you tell if there is any?
Flāvidus (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Flāvidus No, as I've said, it's not used in Cantonese. Recordings on Forvo do not count.

What do you want regarding 賢? Could you explain further?

Also please do not remove others' replies. – Wpi31 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Which reply or section did I remove? Flāvidus (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Flāvidus Special:Diff/70606453 – Wpi31 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove any section, if it happened it wasn't on purpose, sorry for any trouble and thank you for understanding.Have a nice day. Flāvidus (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The written Chinese sentence 殺人放火金腰帶 sounds like a descriptive idiom to me. -- Apisite (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you reverted my editing but that's one fact... Thanks RAJNI GOUNDER (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Where are they originally from??? RAJNI GOUNDER (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. May I ask, why did you add the "Hong Kong" label? AFAIK this sense is not restricted to that region. For example, the Guifan cidian defines 牌照 as 由有关行政部门颁发的行车凭证或营业执照 ("Driver's license or business license issued by the relevant administrative department"). ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: It was a very common usage for me, but it had not been added for almost 9 years since the page was created, so I assumed that it was a Hong Kong-only usage. Also perhaps influenced by 牌 "license" that I was also adding around that time, and AFAICT is only limited to Hong Kong. Indeed Guoyu Cidian also defines it as license. In any case, feel free to remove the label for 牌照. – Wpi31 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that you have nominated the word "阿媽都唔認得" on 13 August 2022, and you also suggested that it will be optimum for Mothers' Day. As the time passes, the next coming Mother's day is on 14 May 2023, which is less than a month's time when this message is sent. Therefore, I recommend you to put that word in "Nominated for a particular moment", since that can boost the change of keeping that day for your phrase.

But, let's be real.

如果你到時東窗事發，畀你媽媽打到阿媽都唔認得，咁我就愛莫能助啦！自己睇餸食飯啦！ [Cantonese, trad.]
如果你到时东窗事发，畀你妈妈打到阿妈都唔认得，咁我就爱莫能助啦！自己睇𩠌食饭啦！ [Cantonese, simp.]

jyu⁴ gwo² nei⁵ dou³ si⁴ dung¹ coeng¹ si⁶ faat³, bei² nei⁵ maa^1-4 maa¹ daa² dou³ aa³ maa¹ dou¹ m⁴ jing⁶ dak¹, gam³ ngo⁵ zau⁶ oi³ mok⁶ nang⁴ zo⁶ laa¹! zi⁶ gei² tai² sung³ sik⁶ faan⁶ laa¹! [Jyutping]

If it is exposed then, and you get beat by you mum awfully, than I cannot help you despite having the heart to! So act flexibly by yourself!

Beefwiki (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up: you are implementing lite templates in places where they do not work. The template docs mention that they do not support square brackets in their arguments, but the script or bot you are using to make these changes is not checking for that. This was observed on 水, Japanese section, the usage note for Etymology 1:

Before your edit on March 15:

“{{m|en|[[water]] that is not [[hot]]}}” --> “water that is not hot”

After your edit on March 15:

“{{m-lite|en|[[water]] that is not [[hot]]|[[water]] that is not [[hot]]}}” --> “[[water that is not hot#English|water that is not hot]]”

I would be very surprised if this was an isolated occurrence.

2600:4040:A05B:C700:3158:1C94:487C:F7A 08:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you anonymous IP (or whoever you are, not logged in). I'm pretty sure I've commited similar errors elsewhere, they will be fixed properly if possible. – Wpi (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are 12 instances that I've found and fixed accordingly (which I would say is not a lot, but also not insignificant).

@theknightwho would it be possible to modify Module:lite-new to return the original non-lite templates if such syntax occurs? Wpi (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi I can, yes. Alternatively, it's probably better to return multiple instances of the lite template. Theknightwho (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that the etymologies in Mandarin and Cantonese should be grouped together because both are from "JJ". Mahogany115 (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahogany115: correct, but they have different etymologies (and etymons) one step before 丁丁. JJ is from 雞雞 for Mandarin but 脧脧 for Cantonese. I think they should still be kept separated, even though they are synonyms. Wpi (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

also @Theknightwho Can we get rid of {{zh-syn}}, {{zh-synonym of}}/{{zh-synonym}}, {{zh-ant}}? They don't appear to do much. And maybe also {{zh-cat}}, although I'm not exactly sure how it works. Benwing2 (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: there's two scope of templates here, which I want to deal with them seperately since the syntax is a bit different, one are the form of templates like {{zh-synonym of}}, {{zh-alt form}}, {{zh-short}}, etc., one are the "inline" collapsed templates like {{zh-syn}}, {{zh-ant}}, {{zh-also}}, {{zh-alt-inline}}, {{zh-cot}}, {{zh-hyper}}, etc. (there's also the generic link templates {{zh-l}} and {{zh-m}}, but we'll deal with them later)

{{zh-cat|foo|bar}} is just {{topics|zh|foo|bar}} except for the ones listed at Module:zh-cat/data. – Wpi (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, makes sense. I guess my question is, are there any gotchas I should be aware of when converting these templates? Any specific things I need to do when converting them? E.g. {{zh-syn}} is template-only code that makes various calls to {{zh-l}}; there is a tr= param associated with each synonym, presumably I should check to see if it's redundant and remove it if so? Benwing2 (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: For the form-of ones it's basically using the corresponding generic templates (if there are), replacing the slashes in |1= with double slashes. The format is the same across all of these, unless otherwise stated: |1= is the term, |2= is |t=, |dot= (these templates all have built-in period), |tr= and |nocap= are self-explanatory. There's the possibility to encounter a |gloss= by careless editors (because the parameter scheme is inconsistent across templates), which is supposed to be a |t=. The asterisks are also present in a few places, but I'll get them sorted manually as well.

• {{zh-synonym of}} ({{zh-synonym}}) to {{synonym of|zh}}
• {{zh-alt form}} ({{zh-alt-form}}) to {{alternative form of|zh}}
• {{zh-misspelling of}} ({{zh-misspelling}}) to {{misspelling of|zh}}

These are some more complicated ones:

• {{zh-altterm}} and {{zh-altname}} are equivalents to some confusingly named deprecated templates, I think these are same as {{synonym of}} but there's some that should be {{alternative form of}}.
• {{zh-short-comp|aa|bb|cc|dd}} is equivalent to {{short for|zh|[[aa]][[bb]][[cc]][[dd]]}}; the t is at |t= instead of |2=; there might be some other fancy parameters that would have to be dealt with manually, not worth the hassle botting them. The template is a somewhat useful feature so I'm not sure if we want to deprecate the template entirely?

These are not in scope for now because I don't know the treatment should be:

• {{zh-original}}, {{zh-used in}} ({{zh-used}}), {{zh-only used in}} ({{zh-only}}) should probably be changed to a Module:form of invocation?
• {{zh-subst-char}} no idea what this is for?
• {{zh-old-name}} should be {{lb|zh|historical}} or {{lb|zh|obsolete}} or something?

For the inline templates {{zh-syn}} (to {{syn|zh}}), {{zh-ant}} (to {{ant|zh}}), {{zh-hyper}} (to {{hyper|zh}}), {{zh-cot}} (to {{cot|zh}}), these have the same format where each of the numbered parameters are similar to the first parameter mentioned above. |trn= and |qn= are self-explanatory.

• {{zh-also}} should be converted to a ====See also==== section (sometimes it's sense-specific so it'll need checking).
• {{zh-alt-inline}} is similar, to an ====Alternative forms==== section, except when |c=1, it needs proper formatting (read: not automatable). However there's a problem since Chinese doesn't usually do ====Alternative forms====, and these ones are usually sense-specific.

If there are redundant tr or simplified forms, it's usually for reducing the memory usage on some single character pages, it should be possible to remove them since the generic templates probably uses less memory.

– Wpi (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wrote a script to convert {{zh-syn}}, {{zh-ant}}, {{zh-hypo}}, {{zh-hyper}} and {{zh-cot}}. I did not implement support for slashes, asterisks or circumflexes, but even then it only outputs 22 warnings, which should be easy to handle manually. It checks for language names in qualifiers and I'll implement the same thing for *nyms as for {{col*}}, so that if a language code is given, it outputs the language name as a right qualifier. However, most of the qualifiers aren't quite language names; there's a lot of "Cantonese opera" and "Kunqu", plus a fair number of geographic qualifiers like "Mainland China", "Taiwan", "Mainland", "Hong Kong", "Singapore", "Macau", etc. There's also one occurrence of "Taiwanese Hokkien". Not quite sure what to do with these. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

See User:Benwing2/zh-syn-ant-warnings. Let me know if you want me to go ahead and run the script. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Please go ahead with that. "Taiwanese Hokkien" should probably be added as an etym code, but we can deal with that later (as I've said on the other thread). – Wpi (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's done running. Once you deal with the warnings we can delete the templates. I looked into {{zh-cat}} and it seems there are three types of categories it can add: topic categories, poscatboiler categories, and classifier categories. The first two can easily be converted to generic uses but the third one might be a bit awkward; I wonder if we should maintain a special template just for these categories. Benwing2 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: The classifier categories has nothing to do with {{zh-cat}}; they are accessed from {{zh-mw}}. – Wpi (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 It seems Module:nyms hasn't been configured to do the langcode prefix thing; currently yue:term links to the version of Wikitionary in that language rather than the page here. – Wpi (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

As for classifier categories, the code in Module:zh-cat on lines 18-20 looks for a category of the form Classifier:TRAD and creates a special classifier category if it encounters this. However, so far among the first 45,000 pages that use {{zh-cat}}, there are no uses of this functionality. Benwing2 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see. In any case, those should be using {{zh-mw}} instead. – Wpi (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm working on {{zh-cat}}. Of those in Module:zh-cat/data, the ones beginning with 'Chinese' should use e.g. {{cln|zh|twice-borrowed terms}}, the ones beginning with 'Mandarin' should use e.g. {{cln|cmn|informal terms}}, the ones containing 'Mandarin' should use e.g. {{cat|cmn|Elementary Mandarin}}, the ones containing 'Chinese' should use e.g. {{cat|zh|Triplicated Chinese characters}}. The use of 'zh' vs. 'cmn' affects sorting, although I don't know if there's any practical difference. What about 'Wasei kango' and 'Thirty-Six Stratagems'? Also should we rename e.g. 'Triplicated Chinese characters' to 'Chinese triplicated characters'? Benwing2 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems we also have Category:Triplicated CJKV characters etc. with a lot more entries in them. Benwing2 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have written the conversion script for {{zh-cat}} but not run it yet, pending the above questions; let me know if you are OK with running it. I am running another conversion script for {{zh-synonym of}}, {{zh-alt form}} and aliases. I also see an old discussion from Feb 2020 about removing {{zh-obsolete}}, where the consensus is unanimously in favor of deletion. How should this be replaced? It seems it should display 'obsolete' or similar, but currently it has a tooltip indicating that the term is obsolete only in Standard Mandarin and may survive in other varieties or in compounds. One possibility is a language-specific label, something like 'zh-obsolete', which displays obsolete or obsolete in Mandarin or similar, and links to somewhere in an appendix document giving more explanation. Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

See User:Benwing2/zh-syn-of-alt-form-warnings. 27 or so warnings, but you can ignore the ones that say "Replaced N occurrences of ...". There were 150 or so cases with an asterisk, so I handled them in the bot. Benwing2 (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2:

Category:Wasei kango is a weird one: {{wasei kango}} is a Chinese template but it categorises into a Japanese category. {{zh-cat|wasei kango}} seems to be only indirectly invocated in {{wasei kango}}, we could decide on that later.

I think Category:Thirty-Six Stratagems should be a topic/set cat Category:zh:Thirty-Six Stratagems.

Please also flag the ones with classifier categories if you encounter them.

There's practically no difference in sorting in the current implementation - both relies on Module:Hani-sortkey - but the distinction should still be made in case we want to sort Mandarin stuff by pronunciation.

The "Triplicated Chinese characters" ones should be named either that unchanged (if we want to maintain consistency with the categories for CJKV characters), or "Chinese characters that are triplicated" (if we want to be consistent with the global category naming scheme). (Chinese character refers to a specific concept and shouldn't be separated); Personally I prefer keeping the name unchanged.

There should be consensus to delete {{zh-obsolete}} (and its friends like {{zh-historical-dict}}, {{zh-no-solo}} {{zh-hg/s}}), but we haven't decided on how to replace them yet. CC @Justinrleung, RcAlex36

The asterisks disables simplified forms and pinyin, but usually only one of them is intended (either because the simplified form is actually the same as traditional form, or the term is not Mandarin and pinyin is not wanted), which is why I said those could not be automated. Could you provide a list of the ones with asterisks so that I could check them? – Wpi (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also @Benwing2 the bot failed to account for a missing |dot= which defaults to having a period, i.e. {{zh-synonym of|term}} should be {{synonym of|zh|term}}. instead of {{synonym of|zh|term}}, likewise for {{zh-alt form}}.

(but it's correct when the original code is {{zh-synonym of|term|dot=}}) Wpi (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

BTW note that {{zh-cat|tcm}} (for Category:zh:Traditional Chinese medicine) should be converted to a topic cat, in case you missed that one. – Wpi (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

My script does handle {{zh-cat|tcm}} correctly. The missing |dot= not defaulting to a period was an intentional choice; {{syn of}} and {{alt form}} do not add a period by default and glosses normally aren't followed by a period so I intentionally left off the period. Benwing2 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll provide a list of cases where asterisk was converted to TRAD// (maybe tomorrow as I need to go to bed now). I'll start the {{zh-cat}} conversion script now, as it will take a while (maybe 24-30 hours). Benwing2 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

See User:Benwing2/zh-syn-of-alt-form-asterisk. Benwing2 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ BTW I'll deal with renaming Category:Thirty-Six Stratagems to a topic cat once the {{zh-cat}} conversion finishes. There are only 78 or so pages in the category so it should be easy to change. Benwing2 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

{{zh-cat}} is obsoleted. Benwing2 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

In terms of obsoleting {{zh-altterm}} and {{zh-altname}}, it looks like these are mostly synonyms but some could use {{alt form}}. If it would help, I can provide you a file containing one line per term using either template along with the definition; then all you'd need to do is indicate whether it should be treated as a synonym or alt form (since synonyms are probably the majority, you could get by with just marking the alt forms, e.g. with a * or something); then I can do the rest. How does that sound? Benwing2 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

BTW some of the |hide_pron= occurrences that you converted resulted in module errors. Do we need a |hide_pron= or similar flag on {{col3}}? Benwing2 (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: The way you proposed about {{zh-altterm}} and {{zh-altname}} sounds good. I'll probably need to enlist someone for help though, since I'm not familiar with some of the literary usage.

For the hide_pron problem, that's expected; I'll deal with the errors once I finish converting the rest. – Wpi (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, sounds good, thanks for the conversion work. Benwing2 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wpi, I was wondering if you could tell me what the difference is between Wong Tai Sin as an area and Wong Tai Sin as a district. I'm curious because it seemed to me like a lot of places in Hong Kong were both an area and a district. My guess is that some cultural 'areas' are different from the governmental 'district'. But why is there such a fine-grained difference? Do the cites I used on Wong Tai Sin so far fit under the correct senses? Thanks for any guidance. Part of the reason I'm asking is that if I do work on the variant spellings for these locations, the cites I find will need to sort under one or the other sense on the main entry, so I kind of need to understand what the area/district divide is. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: Your inituition is mostly correct, there are (currently) 18 official districts (Districts of Hong Kong); "areas" are generally smaller places within a district, without official boundaries. Wong Tai Sin for example, is both an area (Wong Tai Sin, Hong Kong and a district (Wong Tai Sin District)

In daily life, districts are rarely used, and even within addresses they are uncommon. Generally speaking, unless the cites explicitly speak of a "district" (or a "distirct council" etc., or some election-specific stuff), it's always refering to the area.

A few further comments:

• There are three "regions", no more and no less - Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, New Territories.
• There are several places that are both an area and a village/town, e.g. Pok Fu Lam, Sai Kung, Tsing Yi - usually the area is named after the original village/town, and the former would have eclipseds the usage of the latter, but sometimes extra care is needed.
• "Rural committees" are a type of (mostly geographical) organisation between villages, you can ignore those for now.
• The reason I made the district and rural committee entries was mostly to allow categorisation in the future.

– Wpi (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I want to bring this category to your attention. I plan to slowly add new images and documents to that category as I find them, along the lines of Commons:Category:Romanization of Mandarin. To see kind of the "direction" I have been heading, look at Commons:Category:Pinyin, which has numerous subcategories and etc that you could modify or could base your edits on, etc. Particularly see: Commons:Category:Signs using Pinyin. Just a thought- I know you're interested in Cantonese romanization. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: I see. The scope/description of the categories are themselves problematic though - "Mandarin" actually includes all of the Chinese languages, while "Cantonese" points to Q649913 (jyutping) which is usually only used in the academia. Don't want to deal with stuff on Commons (Wiktionary is already a bit too much); can you help me point these inaccuracies out for the Commons folk? – Wpi (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I knew you would have some good input! I will work on that issue. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hope you are well. Since I last wrote to you, the "Category:Romanization of Cantonese" category has gone from 0 to now 140 images! Eventually I would plan to break up these images in a way similar to the way that "Category:Romanization of Mandarin" and "Category:Pinyin" are broken up. This is all thanks to your work on Wiktionary-- I will usually work a little on Wikimedia Commons media entries when I work on a Hong Kong-related entry on Wiktionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please explain why you did diff and diff? One helps sort the senses, and the other help explain them. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel.z.tg: Could you kindly refrain from editing Chinese entries if you have no knowledge of the language? Thanks. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel.z.tg It is generally not a good idea to make sweeping content changes to entries in languages you don’t speak, because there is likely a lot of nuance that you’re missing. Theknightwho (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RcAlex36, Theknightwho: I am ethnic Chinese and the "tg" of my username is from Mandarin 唐 (Táng). The ".z." is also from Mandarin. I grew up speaking a mix of Mandarin and another dialect.

The only potential thing is that I didn't read Wiktionary:About_Chinese carefully and I don't add everything to my userpage Babel. Please point out what's wrong with my edits instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel.z.tg It’s not ad hominem to object to people editing languages they don’t know. Even though you do have knowledge of Chinese, it’s an extremely well-established practice on Wiktionary that the opinions of people who lack knowledge of a language are less important than the opinions of those who speak it. This is also basic common sense. Theknightwho (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: I might lack knowledge about it (or perhaps about how to write a dictionary about it) but I have knowledge of/speaking it. Again, can you please tell me where my edits lack knowledge beyond just saying that I as a person don't? Daniel.z.tg (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel.z.tg Sure, and I have now acknowledged that. You’ll have to wait for an answer from Wpi, because one of the changes was quite large and I haven’t looked into it. I was mostly concerned about whether you actually know the language.

Please do understand that we have a lot of issues with people who edit in good faith and think they’re helping, but end up doing harm to the project because they don’t really know what they’re doing. One particularly bad user did immeasurable harm adding misinformation about hundreds(!) of small languages before they were properly stopped, which was mostly down to their incompetence and unwillingness to understand the limits of their knowledge.

To be clear, I’m not saying any of that applies to you, but I just want to give you a bit of perspective as to why we place so much importance on knowledge of a language. It’s not a requirement to know the language by any means, but editing a language you don’t know is a difficult skill that takes time to develop, and it will always carry inherent limitations.

What is the other Chinese lect you know, apart from Mandarin? Theknightwho (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I updated my Babel at User:Daniel.z.tg. Basically here is my Chinese situation:

• Wu Chinese is from birth, but aside from colloquial expressions, just pronouncing Manadrin words.
• Manadrin from Satruday school and TV shows, which I understand
• Cantonese from friends, TV shows, and church but I can't understand speech
• Classical from reading the English and Classical together, and then guessing
• All of it is mostly informal and oral (unwritten)

But for the term Chinese 死 (sǐ), I think I know the nuances because I get a gut feeling similar to my native English. The intensifier usage I use with my friends, while a non-native speaker who studied Chinese at my university was confused at why us native speakers were using that sense that they non-natives didn't know existed.

As for "because one of the changes was quite large," the diff is just large in appearance only. I didn't remove any content. All I did was group the senses with explanations, and to do so I had to add {{ng}} and change the order. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do think 死 is a bit messy at the moment and might need some reordering, but your edits made a lot inaccuracies and assumptions, in particular:

1. placing "deadly" as a subsense of "to die", which is wrong because subsenses are meant to be an extension of the main sense (c.f. sense 1.1 of 死 "to die for the sake of" which is a subsense of "to die"), and not a derivative sense - the adverb senese "deadly" is indeed from "to die", but "deadly" is not a type of "to die" (note that this is also problematic since "deadly" and "to die" have different PoS)
2. the "an intensifier like per-" sense, which made no sense at all (and which sense of per- are you referring to?). I also don't understand why you would put the four senses together as a subsense of this, as there isn't any proper connection between them or with "per-".
3. "(figurative) dead": the only thing the two senses share in common is being figurative usage. Grouping the two is unnecessary.
4. The comparison with Japanese is unwarranted. I don't see a semantic shift from "dead" to something along the lines of "very good; wonderful". Also I don't see why you need to use Japanese here, as English awesome could equivalently serve the same purpose.

– Wpi (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi:

1. Sorry, I didn't know how Wiktionary groups subsenses. I only grouped them based on what I felt was similar. Maybe you can group them better
2. I meant sense 2 and 4 "thoroughly" and "extremely" of per-. Sense 3 is probably coincidental, but it feels like the same metaphor. Anyway, linguistically it's an intensifier
3. I think that our Chinese pages' senses need to be grouped. There are so many top-level senses that it has become confusing and hard to read. My goal with that sort/grouping edit is to reduce the number of top-level senses without removing any information
4. I thought an comparison with a Sino-Xenic language would illustrate the point better. If the mainland propaganda of Japan hate has reached Hong Kong (a long time ago I remember that my Hong Kong friends, unlike mainland students, loved Japanese culture), then we can indeed use an English example. Perhaps English terribly fits the sense of our current Chinese word better

Daniel.z.tg (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

1. Grouping subsenses isn't that important at the moment - there are often still some senses missing and most entries will need reworking anyways. Also since Chinese doesn't separate definitions by PoS it's sometimes difficult to figure things out. For a better example you can refer to 下 (though there are still a few things I want to iron out), note how the adjective and verb senses are grouped separately.
2. Only the "very" and "damn" senses are intensifiers. The other two do not fit here.
3. Yes, I also have similar concerns about growing definition lists, but your approach doesn't help much - the senses needs to be grouped in a logical way to clarify things.
4. What I meant was that there is no need for a comparison as there is no such semantic shift in Chinese. Rarely is there a need to make such comparisons, unless the word has a strong association with Japanese or there are clear parallel developments.

– Wpi (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

1. Regrading grouping:
   1. Perhaps we can send the pages with the excessive number of top-level senses to WT:RFC?
   2. PoS, and "adjective and verb senses" are a foreign Graeco-Roman/European concept forced onto Chinese. As a native speaker, I know Chinese doesn't really have a distinction between verbs and adjectives, and I just speak Mandarin based on how I hear others talk. Classical Chinese didn't really have fixed PoS for 1-character words, and fixed PoS was probably an innovation in the ancestor of Modern Chinese, and separately in that of J/K together. Both adjective and verb words can be used as verbs with 了 in Mandarin, but there are irregularities:

      • 花紅了 OK, inchoative verb
      • 花(還)紅著 OK, stative verb
      • 花很紅/花是紅的 OK, Stative verb / adjective meaning
      • *花紅 Same meaning but only natural in comparisons
      • *車下了 Slightly unnatural, but imagine a multistorey parking garage; Something like a change-of-state verb progressive or preterite meaning
      • *車(還)下著 Sounds slightly wrong, but has either stative or progressive meaning
      • 車下來了/車下去了 OK
      • *車很下 Sounds very wrong
      • *車在下 Slightly unnatural, stative meaning
      • 車在下面 OK
      • Then we have 飯很熱/飯熱了 and 我熱了飯/我把飯熱了. It feels unnatural to separate these senses just to have verbs and adjectives in their own group.

      Therefore, it's not always natural to group by PoS. In the specific case of 下 (xià)'s original senses before grouping, I would have also grouped them like you did, but I wouldn't necessarily say we need to do that for every word. Ideally it should be based on meaning whenever possible.

2. What you're saying could be the case. Sense 3 and 4 "persistently" and "tightly" feel like they should go under a group named {{ng|like 牢 (láo)}} but I couldn't find a linguistic term to express this idea

Daniel.z.tg (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi: With diff you have made 3 consecutive reverts on that page in a 24-hour period. Considering the other related revert, you have exceed 3 reverts. Wiktionary doesn't use 3RR, but we similarly don't like edit warring here. Help:Reverting says "it is your responsibility to try and find a middle ground that is acceptable to you both." Me originally creating this section was to fulfill the "a message on their talk page, or the entry's discussion page, can help to start this process" part.

About that specific diff, you said earlier "Also I don't see why you need to use Japanese here, as English awesome." A comparison is constructive and helps a reader more easily understand the word. Then I found a more fitting English comparison and added it like you discussed, but you reverted it again.

Can you show us that your consecutive reverts are mainly because of a reason other than you stalking my edit history trying to claim the Wiktionary equivalent of WP:OWNERSHIP and imposing your exact version of the page? I am currently not here to accuse, but to try and reach an understanding of how we editors can collaboratively edit in good faith. What edits of mine would you not revert immediately? Daniel.z.tg (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please do not cite irrelevant policy/guidelines from another wiki, Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. Also note that Help:Reverting is not a policy or guideline, and therefore is not enforcable.

If you read my earlier carefully, what I'm saying is that such a semantic shift is equally valid for Japanese or English, and yet this doesn't exist in Chinese and therefore any sort of comparison is unwarranted. For the comparison with dead wrong, this similarly lacks any sort of significant etymological connection or semantic parallels.

Never did I stalk your edit history. Instead I am closely monitoring Chinese entries edits using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Chinese lemmas to deal with any sort of vandalism, nonconstructive edits or poorly-formatted edits. This includes your edits, which are inhelpful and nonconstructive, that I have explained at great lengths above, and is a view corrobated by others. – wpi (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kindly check pinyin each time you create a Mandarin entry. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have to understand that my Mandarin is pretty crap - only cmn-2. Usually I would know a word is used in Mandarin, but I won't really know what would be the correct pronunciation - I'll just use whatever the module gives me and as long as it looks sort of correct. Blame those who voted to merge Chinese into one L2 and therefore forcing everyone to know everything in every Chinese lect, not me. – wpi (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello~ 最近無意中發現咗⿰⿳⿰SIR木阝呢條entry，然後起一起你貢獻，發現你一直都create緊好多好有趣嘅香港粵語entries，好似直必腸啊、男姑娘啊噉，所以好想認識下你😂😂 唔知你介唔介意留個contact交流下呢？ Jonashtand (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply