This is the
talk page for discussing
Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Another template that might tread on toes style-guide-wise, but I think is probably really worthwhile in some form? I wrote {{
kxr}}
this morning. I want to tweak it a bit more, but it only works by number right now, because by label will take a bit longer.
{{
kxr|120}}
→ ⽷ 'SILK'
{{
kxr|54|l=yes}}
→ ⼵ '
LONG STRIDE'
It uses small caps and boldface, but I really do think it's fine here, to distinguish from both regular texts and regular glosses. It uses the Unicode gloss for each Kangxi radical, but I also want to add positioned variants like ⺼, 爫, and 歺, etc. etc. But! I wanted to make sure people would find this useful before I put another few hours into it, and moreover don't actively hate it! Remsense 聊 17:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|zh}}
(or equivalent bare HTML markup, like <span language="zh">...</span>
), followed by the gloss in 'single quotes': ⼵ 'long stride'. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
unichar}}
→ U+2F35 ⼵ KANGXI RADICAL LONG STRIDE. It's almost a less-glossed gloss? Since the semantic meanings of the radicals are so broad and reified, it feels appropriate to potentially mark them up differently/make them appear as part of a set. But maybe I'm overfixated on the distinction?{{
Unichar}}
uses that format because it is conventional (not just within Wikipedia) to render the official names of Unicode code points that way. This is not true of glosses of Chinese radicals. It's kind of like deciding to render all names of video game characters in italics because you saw that italics were used for book titles. There's no connection between the subjects. Re: Und-Hani – sure, that makes sense. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Remsense 留 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It's come to my attention recently that
Am I alright to add as such to this article? It is conspicuously absent.
What we have now (due to someone reverting to it): Where "China" or the "People's Republic of China" is used, it should not be changed arbitrarily. In many contexts, the terms are interchangeable: if China and People's Republic of China both seem appropriate, editors should use their own discretion.
What we should have again: If "China" or the "People's Republic of China" is used consistently in an article, it should not be arbitrarily changed. In many contexts, the terms are interchangeable: if China and People's Republic of China both seem appropriate, editors should use their own discretion.
Or some blended version that still includes "used consistently in an article".
Someone absolutely should "arbitrarily" change a stray occurrence of one match the otherwise consistent usage of the other in the same article. On no style matter should we be veering back and forth confusingly, especially when it comes to names that may mean something different to different people. If you're going to use the short "China", then use it consistently and explain it at first occurrence (with a link or more textually) as referring to the PRC. If you're going to use the long version, then stick with it and use "PRC" for short as seems warranted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Just today alone I see a truly excessive amount of "rehape this in my own person idiom" editing, without any discussion for any of it. This is not how guideline changes are made, it tends to lead to mass-reverts and other disputation, and it casts doubt in community minds whether this is really a guideline or something that needs to be moved to WP:WikiProject China/Style advice and tagged as an essay. Doing typographic and code cleanup is one thing (maybe along with some objective structure and flow improvements), but it's quite another to be making so many actually substantive changes without any consensus discussion in support of them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether my feeling is very rigorous, but it does seem there are instances where both simplified and traditional characters are supplied where the forms are similar enough that it does little but take up extra space. I do not know exactly how universal the knowledge of basic forms of both sets is, but it seems like it could be worthwhile to investigate a nuance in style policy here. For example, it seems potentially very wasteful when both forms of a word are given, but the only graphical distinction is the systematic simplification of a radical. Remsense 留 08:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! A user argued in WP:PINYIN for usage of pinyin. This makes sense with post-1949 articles about Mainland China and/or general about individuals loyal to the CCP. However, I think both Pinyin and old postal system names/other romanizations of cities should be used in late Qing Dynasty and Republican Era-related articles, as those spellings were used at the time. Also, IMO individuals who died in the Republican Era and/or were loyal to the KMT should likely use the non-standard romanizations. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Chinese}}
exists.
What does everyone think of this as a reworking of the "Romanisation" section? Hopefully there's nothing controversial here. My main goal was to add clarifying details and improve the overall flow. I also replaced guidance that already exists more extensively at WP:NCZH with references to that page, to minimize duplication.
===Romanisation===
There are a number of systems used to romanise Chinese characters. English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin, with some minor exceptions outlined below. When using pinyin:
If a source uses a non-pinyin or non-standard spelling, it should be converted into pinyin. Consider also providing the source's spelling to ease verification by other users.
Even where the title of an article uses a non-pinyin romanisation, romanisations of other Chinese words within the article should still be in pinyin. For example, Tsingtao Brewery is a trademark which uses a non-pinyin romanisation, but an article talking about Tsingtao Brewery should still use the pinyin spelling when talking about Qingdao city:
Correct: Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Qingdao city, Shandong.
Incorrect: Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Tsingtao city, Shan-tung. or Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Tsingtao city, Shandong.
====When to use romanisations other than pinyin====
Articles should use a non-pinyin spelling of a term if that spelling is used by the clear majority of modern, reliable, secondary sources (see WP:NC-ZH for examples). If the term does not have its own article, the pinyin romanisation should be given in a parenthetical. For example,
The Hung Ga style Ng Ying Hung Kuen ( Chinese: 五形洪拳; pinyin: Wǔxíng Hóngquán) traces its ancestry to Ng Mui.
Relatedly, note that systems of Chinese language romanization in Taiwan (the Republic of China) are far less standardized than in mainland China. Hanyu Pinyin has been the official standard since 2009, but systems such Wade–Giles, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Tongyong Pinyin, and Chinese postal romanization remain in use for both personal and place names. In Taiwan, place names derived from Hanyu Pinyin rarely use the syllable-dividing apostrophe. For example, write Daan District, Taipei City, not Da'an District, Taipei City. SilverStar54 ( talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
uuline}}
is likely the best technique we have when we would like to emphasize a character:This should be a logical last resort, though.Posthumous name
Emperor Qintian Lüdao Yingyi Shengshen Xuanwen Guangwu Hongren Daxiao Su
欽天履道英毅聖神宣文廣武洪仁大孝肅皇帝
Remsense 诉 04:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
During the GAN for Chinese characters, @ Kusma pointed out sections that really should include the characters and romanization for certain terms, even though they're linked—e.g. regular script in the the § History section. I agree: perhaps some class of exception to this guideline should be mentioned, while always being mindful of WP:CREEP. I'm not sure exactly what that class should be—perhaps "within a broad article, while summary style–ing what could be considered its subarticles", or "when omission would be conspicuous or confusing in light of other terms that are linked within an article" Remsense 诉 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Another template that might tread on toes style-guide-wise, but I think is probably really worthwhile in some form? I wrote {{
kxr}}
this morning. I want to tweak it a bit more, but it only works by number right now, because by label will take a bit longer.
{{
kxr|120}}
→ ⽷ 'SILK'
{{
kxr|54|l=yes}}
→ ⼵ '
LONG STRIDE'
It uses small caps and boldface, but I really do think it's fine here, to distinguish from both regular texts and regular glosses. It uses the Unicode gloss for each Kangxi radical, but I also want to add positioned variants like ⺼, 爫, and 歺, etc. etc. But! I wanted to make sure people would find this useful before I put another few hours into it, and moreover don't actively hate it! Remsense 聊 17:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|zh}}
(or equivalent bare HTML markup, like <span language="zh">...</span>
), followed by the gloss in 'single quotes': ⼵ 'long stride'. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
unichar}}
→ U+2F35 ⼵ KANGXI RADICAL LONG STRIDE. It's almost a less-glossed gloss? Since the semantic meanings of the radicals are so broad and reified, it feels appropriate to potentially mark them up differently/make them appear as part of a set. But maybe I'm overfixated on the distinction?{{
Unichar}}
uses that format because it is conventional (not just within Wikipedia) to render the official names of Unicode code points that way. This is not true of glosses of Chinese radicals. It's kind of like deciding to render all names of video game characters in italics because you saw that italics were used for book titles. There's no connection between the subjects. Re: Und-Hani – sure, that makes sense. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Remsense 留 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It's come to my attention recently that
Am I alright to add as such to this article? It is conspicuously absent.
What we have now (due to someone reverting to it): Where "China" or the "People's Republic of China" is used, it should not be changed arbitrarily. In many contexts, the terms are interchangeable: if China and People's Republic of China both seem appropriate, editors should use their own discretion.
What we should have again: If "China" or the "People's Republic of China" is used consistently in an article, it should not be arbitrarily changed. In many contexts, the terms are interchangeable: if China and People's Republic of China both seem appropriate, editors should use their own discretion.
Or some blended version that still includes "used consistently in an article".
Someone absolutely should "arbitrarily" change a stray occurrence of one match the otherwise consistent usage of the other in the same article. On no style matter should we be veering back and forth confusingly, especially when it comes to names that may mean something different to different people. If you're going to use the short "China", then use it consistently and explain it at first occurrence (with a link or more textually) as referring to the PRC. If you're going to use the long version, then stick with it and use "PRC" for short as seems warranted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Just today alone I see a truly excessive amount of "rehape this in my own person idiom" editing, without any discussion for any of it. This is not how guideline changes are made, it tends to lead to mass-reverts and other disputation, and it casts doubt in community minds whether this is really a guideline or something that needs to be moved to WP:WikiProject China/Style advice and tagged as an essay. Doing typographic and code cleanup is one thing (maybe along with some objective structure and flow improvements), but it's quite another to be making so many actually substantive changes without any consensus discussion in support of them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether my feeling is very rigorous, but it does seem there are instances where both simplified and traditional characters are supplied where the forms are similar enough that it does little but take up extra space. I do not know exactly how universal the knowledge of basic forms of both sets is, but it seems like it could be worthwhile to investigate a nuance in style policy here. For example, it seems potentially very wasteful when both forms of a word are given, but the only graphical distinction is the systematic simplification of a radical. Remsense 留 08:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! A user argued in WP:PINYIN for usage of pinyin. This makes sense with post-1949 articles about Mainland China and/or general about individuals loyal to the CCP. However, I think both Pinyin and old postal system names/other romanizations of cities should be used in late Qing Dynasty and Republican Era-related articles, as those spellings were used at the time. Also, IMO individuals who died in the Republican Era and/or were loyal to the KMT should likely use the non-standard romanizations. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Chinese}}
exists.
What does everyone think of this as a reworking of the "Romanisation" section? Hopefully there's nothing controversial here. My main goal was to add clarifying details and improve the overall flow. I also replaced guidance that already exists more extensively at WP:NCZH with references to that page, to minimize duplication.
===Romanisation===
There are a number of systems used to romanise Chinese characters. English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin, with some minor exceptions outlined below. When using pinyin:
If a source uses a non-pinyin or non-standard spelling, it should be converted into pinyin. Consider also providing the source's spelling to ease verification by other users.
Even where the title of an article uses a non-pinyin romanisation, romanisations of other Chinese words within the article should still be in pinyin. For example, Tsingtao Brewery is a trademark which uses a non-pinyin romanisation, but an article talking about Tsingtao Brewery should still use the pinyin spelling when talking about Qingdao city:
Correct: Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Qingdao city, Shandong.
Incorrect: Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Tsingtao city, Shan-tung. or Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Tsingtao city, Shandong.
====When to use romanisations other than pinyin====
Articles should use a non-pinyin spelling of a term if that spelling is used by the clear majority of modern, reliable, secondary sources (see WP:NC-ZH for examples). If the term does not have its own article, the pinyin romanisation should be given in a parenthetical. For example,
The Hung Ga style Ng Ying Hung Kuen ( Chinese: 五形洪拳; pinyin: Wǔxíng Hóngquán) traces its ancestry to Ng Mui.
Relatedly, note that systems of Chinese language romanization in Taiwan (the Republic of China) are far less standardized than in mainland China. Hanyu Pinyin has been the official standard since 2009, but systems such Wade–Giles, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Tongyong Pinyin, and Chinese postal romanization remain in use for both personal and place names. In Taiwan, place names derived from Hanyu Pinyin rarely use the syllable-dividing apostrophe. For example, write Daan District, Taipei City, not Da'an District, Taipei City. SilverStar54 ( talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
uuline}}
is likely the best technique we have when we would like to emphasize a character:This should be a logical last resort, though.Posthumous name
Emperor Qintian Lüdao Yingyi Shengshen Xuanwen Guangwu Hongren Daxiao Su
欽天履道英毅聖神宣文廣武洪仁大孝肅皇帝
Remsense 诉 04:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
During the GAN for Chinese characters, @ Kusma pointed out sections that really should include the characters and romanization for certain terms, even though they're linked—e.g. regular script in the the § History section. I agree: perhaps some class of exception to this guideline should be mentioned, while always being mindful of WP:CREEP. I'm not sure exactly what that class should be—perhaps "within a broad article, while summary style–ing what could be considered its subarticles", or "when omission would be conspicuous or confusing in light of other terms that are linked within an article" Remsense 诉 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)