China Template‑class | |||||||
|
I'd like to propose a template redesign, to make it more visually appealing, like those on other language Wikipedias, such as zh:Template:漢字 and ja:Template:漢字. Currently it looks rather plain. If no one opposes, I may start off. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Chinese characters | |||
---|---|---|---|
Scripts | |||
| |||
Properties |
Strokes ·
Stroke order ·
Radicals Classification · Section headers |
Variants |
---|
Standards |
Kangxi Dictionary (
Kyūjitai) Tōyō kanji · Jōyō kanji Standard Form of National Characters List of Forms of Frequently Used Characters Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo |
Reform |
Japanese script reform Simplified Chinese characters Traditional Chinese characters Simplified/traditional debate |
Sinoxenic usage |
---|
Kanji · Hanja · Chữ Nôm |
Derivatives |
Kokuji ·
Korean hanja ·
(invented) Chữ Nôm Kana ( Man'yōgana) · Idu · Sawndip · Nü Shu Zetian characters · Khitan · Jurchen · Tangut |
OK. I made this based on
zh:Template:漢字 and the current template. I made it wider than the Chinese and Japanese ones because of the more space needed for English words and that I think modern monitors could use the space better. I'm still messing with the name lengths and links. Some background colors are also lighter to increase legibility. The image at the top is just an example of a short and wide image whose dimensions I think would look good. I'll probably get a more suitable image in there in a bit.
--
Asoer (
talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The template design described above was applied. Asoer ( talk) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I personally am not so sure about adding the {{·}} bullets between each entry; now it looks kind of strange, especially when bullets appear at the end of a line and aren't separating anything. I'd prefer the previous edition as it would be slightly more tidy and aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. Additionally, I have reverted a good faith edit that removed Bopomofo - as with Japanese Kana, Bopomofo is derived from Chinese characters themselves. I have moved it to the relevant section though. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the format back while leaving the new information in.- Asoer ( talk) 05:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There are some red links and lots of abbreviations in the table now. They seem to be unnecessary. The table is a directory to existing articles. Therefore, it's better to make the articles first, and then link to them in the table. However, I'm pretty certain than many of the red links in the table will not make good articles that can't be merged with existing ones. For example "Chinese script reform" can be merged with "Simplified Chinese characters." "Jiù Zìxíng" and "Xīn Zìxíng" refer to non-現代漢語常用字表 forms (not necessarily the Kangxi forms) and the 現代漢語常用字表 forms respectively. Some I have never heard about, such as "future Xīn Zìxíng." You really need to elaborate on that. Also, why move the Joyo Kanji and other standards into the reform section, while keeping 現代漢語常用字表 in the standard section? Asoer ( talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
–– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and standardized the template so that it uses {{ Infobox}}, overtaking all the default formatting options. The new design should be easier to maintain as well. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). The previous layout used a lot of manual coding, and its appearance was totally on odds with the common style of navigation boxes.
Additionally, I think that this template should be a Wikipedia:Navigation templates -- a collapsible box at the page bottom; the way it is now, it presents too much of visual distraction, which is not really necessary. The linked articles are relatively loosely coupled, and this template in infobox format is too prominent. See e.g. the "infobox hell" at Semi-cursive script. No such user ( talk) 14:10,24 March 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
do we maybe need a new image for the template that has Simplified as well as Traditional characters. I suggest this because simplified is by far the more common today and wikipedia manual of style says "In order to accommodate all users, both simplified and traditional characters should be used in all cases where a difference exists." I think that in this context traditional should go first, but its kind of arbitrary. Some may think its fixing something that ain't broken, but some others may think its a peculiar exclusion of simplified characters. I am in the later group and I think it looks especially funny on the page Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. What do you guys think? Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 07:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The template is very massive and makes a nice articles' layout difficult, which is relevant as the topics are very visual (i.e. often having need of images). -- Cold Season ( talk) 16:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
China Template‑class | |||||||
|
I'd like to propose a template redesign, to make it more visually appealing, like those on other language Wikipedias, such as zh:Template:漢字 and ja:Template:漢字. Currently it looks rather plain. If no one opposes, I may start off. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Chinese characters | |||
---|---|---|---|
Scripts | |||
| |||
Properties |
Strokes ·
Stroke order ·
Radicals Classification · Section headers |
Variants |
---|
Standards |
Kangxi Dictionary (
Kyūjitai) Tōyō kanji · Jōyō kanji Standard Form of National Characters List of Forms of Frequently Used Characters Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo |
Reform |
Japanese script reform Simplified Chinese characters Traditional Chinese characters Simplified/traditional debate |
Sinoxenic usage |
---|
Kanji · Hanja · Chữ Nôm |
Derivatives |
Kokuji ·
Korean hanja ·
(invented) Chữ Nôm Kana ( Man'yōgana) · Idu · Sawndip · Nü Shu Zetian characters · Khitan · Jurchen · Tangut |
OK. I made this based on
zh:Template:漢字 and the current template. I made it wider than the Chinese and Japanese ones because of the more space needed for English words and that I think modern monitors could use the space better. I'm still messing with the name lengths and links. Some background colors are also lighter to increase legibility. The image at the top is just an example of a short and wide image whose dimensions I think would look good. I'll probably get a more suitable image in there in a bit.
--
Asoer (
talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The template design described above was applied. Asoer ( talk) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I personally am not so sure about adding the {{·}} bullets between each entry; now it looks kind of strange, especially when bullets appear at the end of a line and aren't separating anything. I'd prefer the previous edition as it would be slightly more tidy and aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. Additionally, I have reverted a good faith edit that removed Bopomofo - as with Japanese Kana, Bopomofo is derived from Chinese characters themselves. I have moved it to the relevant section though. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the format back while leaving the new information in.- Asoer ( talk) 05:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There are some red links and lots of abbreviations in the table now. They seem to be unnecessary. The table is a directory to existing articles. Therefore, it's better to make the articles first, and then link to them in the table. However, I'm pretty certain than many of the red links in the table will not make good articles that can't be merged with existing ones. For example "Chinese script reform" can be merged with "Simplified Chinese characters." "Jiù Zìxíng" and "Xīn Zìxíng" refer to non-現代漢語常用字表 forms (not necessarily the Kangxi forms) and the 現代漢語常用字表 forms respectively. Some I have never heard about, such as "future Xīn Zìxíng." You really need to elaborate on that. Also, why move the Joyo Kanji and other standards into the reform section, while keeping 現代漢語常用字表 in the standard section? Asoer ( talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
–– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and standardized the template so that it uses {{ Infobox}}, overtaking all the default formatting options. The new design should be easier to maintain as well. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). The previous layout used a lot of manual coding, and its appearance was totally on odds with the common style of navigation boxes.
Additionally, I think that this template should be a Wikipedia:Navigation templates -- a collapsible box at the page bottom; the way it is now, it presents too much of visual distraction, which is not really necessary. The linked articles are relatively loosely coupled, and this template in infobox format is too prominent. See e.g. the "infobox hell" at Semi-cursive script. No such user ( talk) 14:10,24 March 2011 (UTC)
Asoer ( talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
do we maybe need a new image for the template that has Simplified as well as Traditional characters. I suggest this because simplified is by far the more common today and wikipedia manual of style says "In order to accommodate all users, both simplified and traditional characters should be used in all cases where a difference exists." I think that in this context traditional should go first, but its kind of arbitrary. Some may think its fixing something that ain't broken, but some others may think its a peculiar exclusion of simplified characters. I am in the later group and I think it looks especially funny on the page Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. What do you guys think? Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 07:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The template is very massive and makes a nice articles' layout difficult, which is relevant as the topics are very visual (i.e. often having need of images). -- Cold Season ( talk) 16:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)