![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it would be wise if we formulate a section giving direction on proper formatting of citations, seeing as there has recently arisen some surprising criticism of the current methods. My suggestion is the standard:
Author 作者 (year). Title 书名 (English translation of title if needed). Location: Publisher, pages.
That's basically what I learned in graduate school and it seems the general standard in the field. If anyone wishes to comment or suggest changes, please go ahead. White Whirlwind 咨 06:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
|author-name-separator=
), but then Wikipedia should cater for a general readership, be consistent, etc.
Kanguole 09:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Except that in terms of cultural convention, the name is written surname first with no comma. That would be kind of a CHINESEVAR thing, which we don't have :) I didn't know that {{ no italics}} shouldn't be used in CS1/CS2 citations so thank you for that. If there is a workaround we should pursue it as use of italics contradicts WP:MOS-ZH (Although people would probably argue that the guideline only applies to body text). Philg88 ♦ talk 10:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
(which could be used for a romanization of the original title) and |trans_title=
(for a translation).{{
sfn}}
/{{
sfnp}}
in large articles: you get a minimal intrusion in the wikitext where you're writing about the subject, you don't have to manually combine repeated refs and make up ref names, and there's a script that checks you got the names and year right. But I recognize that CITEVAR says we shouldn't impose a new citation style on an established and consistently styled article without discusion.
Kanguole 07:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
So the discussion seems to have reached consensus on the following points: the style as I described at the outset, with the additional points that we should be using {{
cite}}
variants in the Works Cited sections and {{
sfnp}}
or similar for inline citations. We also need someone to liaise with a proficient template programmer to sort out a workaround for non-italicization of CJKV characters without using the no-ital tags. Unless anyone objects, I will create the initial section in the MoS in the next day or two. White Whirlwind
咨 04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
+{{
sfnp}}
for longer articles, I don't think we can require it (per CITEVAR). We could recommend it, though. I've made a request at
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles for a new parameter for non-italic titles.
Kanguole 11:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)There is a discussion on possible changes to the formatting of titles in citation templates at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles. People may wish to explain there what we need for Chinese works. Kanguole 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I was trying to check some terms both in Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese by using the sitelinks located in the left-hand toolbar when I ran into the following problem with respect to the consistency of terminology used here at Wikipedia. My question could be formated like this:
Why do we first use the term Traditional Chinese in language tags within the text, and then suddenly use the term Classical Chinese in the sitelinks at the toolbar on the left? Moreover, we use the term Simplified Chinese in the language tags within the text, but in the sitelinks we simply use the term Chinese. By intuition, "Traditional Chinese" could easily get mixed up with plain "Chinese", whereas "Classical Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" could be easily expected to make a different case and have their own sitelinks.
Therefore, I think it'd be more consistent if both terms used in the text would correspond the terms used in the sitelinks at the left-hand toolbar. What do you think? =P Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 16:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! I ran into article ( Fuji and noticed that there are some inconsistencies with the formatting of sentences that include both Chinese and English terms. Let me give an example in order to clarify myself a little bit. In the article, it is said that (numerations added):
Beginning around the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the fuji method and written characters changed from (2) 扶箕 (1) "support the sieve" (4) (spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)
So in a nutshell, we have (1) the English translation (support the sieve), (2) hanzi (扶箕), (3) romanization of the word (not present in the aforementioned quote), and (4) an explanation for the English term ((spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)). See, in the Japan-related articles there is already a practice on how to deal with this kind of sentences, and the formatting of sentences follows the exact structure as mentioned above ((1) - (2) - (3) - (4)). This is handled by a language tag {{nihongo}}. For example, in the Shinnyo-en article, a similar piece of text is handled like this:
Joyful donations (歓喜 kangi, monetary contribution to the organization)
In plain code, this would appear as: {{nihongo|Joyful donations|歓喜|kangi|monetary contribution to the organization}}
Therefore, I'd like to suggest that we will adapt the same practice as the China-related articles. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 17:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the "Jiedushi" subsection. The rest of the guide is routine stuff. This on the other hand was extremely specific. I can't see it comes up enough to justify its inclusion. On a search for ~jiedushi, almost all of the 500 or so occurences—besides the "Jiedushi" article itself—consist of "military governor (jiedushi)", and are articles on specific individual people (jiedushi) or year articles that wikilink to the main "Jiedushi" article. (The other listed ways to use the term are even less likely to come up.) Anyone who uses it can easily see how it's used in other pages if needed. The vast majority editing China-related articles will probably never need to.
The addition was originally proposed by Nlu (pinged) in Jan 2008 for the Naming conventions (Chinese) guideline and inserted [1] there. A few years later it was merged into here [2] as it didn't fit that page. If anyone wants to restore it feel free. – 146.199.151.33 ( talk) 23:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
There's an issue I'd like to bring up for discussion. I have noticed that a couple of editors have adopted a practice of adding information to articles (mostly on people from the Warring States and Three Kingdoms periods, but probably more) and citing as their references the dynastic histories, in particular the Shiji and the San guo zhi. This, I believe, is problematic. I strongly believe that these sources should be treated as primary sources—notwithstanding the fact that they were of course originally secondary or tertiary sources, albeit at a time many long centuries in the past—that for Wikipedia articles we should avoid using, and that we instead should stick to the modern biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias edited by Sinologists, of which there are now several of quite high quality. I would like any and all to please share their thoughts. White Whirlwind 咨 22:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! Is anyone here capable to create a similar template for Chinese as there already exists for the Japan-related articles ( Template:Nihongo and [Template:Nihongo2]])? A concrete example where to utilize such would be at the Yiguandao article, we we have:
Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 19:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Beginning around the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the fuji method and written characters changed from (2) 扶箕 (1) "support the sieve" (4) (spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)
Joyful donations (歓喜 kangi, monetary contribution to the organization)
{{
Zh}}
template except in leads because of its bulky and clunky output. The standard formatting in Sinological literature for a Chinese term is basically thus: "English term/translation" (pinyin 漢字), where the quotation marks around the English term are used only when necessary. An example could be: "often known as 'Chairman Mao' (Máo zhǔxí 毛主席)", or "was promoted to gentleman of the household (zhōngláng 中郎)." The {{
nihongo}}
template inverts the romanization and characters, which is why I avoid it, too, when Japanese terms arise. White Whirlwind
咨 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)I started a discussion, still ongoing, about the China/Taiwan naming issue: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#China and Taiwan naming issue. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The monk Xuanzang apparently died on '5 February 664'. My Japanese 電子辞書 tells me that he died in '麟徳1 (664)', so I assume by ' 5 February' we mean the fifth day of the second month of the Chinese calendar, but should we have a definitive guideline on this point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Does this project cover articles related to Taiwan and overseas Chinese? If so this needs to be made clear in the lead. The title would be unfit and should be changed to "Chinese-related". Szqecs ( talk) 10:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where the misapprehension came from that "only the first word is capitalized" but leaving aside that's not what we usually do; leaving aside that it's not what we should do, since it's non-obvious to English-language editors and will—for the duration of the policy—produce constant makework removing corrections and moving pages around since such a policy violates basic English-language title formatting and our own usual MOS policy; it appears to be simply wrong. Google doesn't make this easy to see but the go-to guide on proper use of Pinyin capitalizes each word of book titles (as e.g. Honglou Meng) where it doesn't just combine them (as Chunqiu). Pending some very powerful citation from one of these native authoritative sources (and note the standard capitalization being observed by the citation from the people who are actually quoting them), we need to scrap that rule and its LOCALCONSENSUS and fix the mistaken formatting that's been used in the infoboxes of various book pages around the encyclopedia. — LlywelynII 22:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of reigniting an old discussion, I have a few questions about the use of pinyin tone marks in the body of articles.
When I'm working on Chinese-related articles, I find myself wondering how/whether to include pinyin tone marks. The Manual of Style says they should only be included in parentheses (using the "zh" template) or in infoboxes, but that could lead to awkward constructions like the following: "The city of Nanjing ( Chinese: 南京; pinyin: Nánjīng) ...," where the same word is repeated twice ("Nanjing," "Nánjīng").
Wouldn't the following flow much better in such situations? "The city of Nánjīng ( Chinese: 南京) ..." Someone who doesn't understand tone markings is likely to ignore them, and someone who does understand them will want them to be there (especially if they don't know the tones beforehand). For people who know Chinese, seeing a new word without tone markings is jarring, because one can't pronounce a Chinese word without the tones, but for people who don't know Chinese, there's little harm in the tone markings being there. In any case, it seems to me that sentence flow is inhibited more by long parentheses than by tone markings in the text.
So, to sum up: when should I include pinyin (with tones) in the "zh" template, and would it be useful to revisit the policy on tone marks in the body of articles? Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
zh}}
and/or {{
infobox Chinese}}
), so the duplication mentioned above will only happen in the opening sentence of the
Nanjing article. In the
Nanjing case, I see that only {{
infobox Chinese}}
is used, so it is not even in the lead. The bodies of articles will just say "Nanjing", with a link at the first use in other articles.
Kanguole 09:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC){{
Infobox Chinese}}
template or just use the lookup tool of their choice. White Whirlwind
咨 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)I agree about truly "knowing" a character, but also point out that one can often guess likely pronunciation (without tone) from the radical. Regardless, there are still many names that native speakers (or advanced second-language speakers) won't be able to pronounce from the characters, and pinyin tone marks would be helpful for them as well. I really do hope it becomes standard in Sinological literature, especially now that pinyin input is trivial on modern computers. Is your thinking that we should wait for greater adoption in Sinological literature before switching over, and what level of adoption are we looking for? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
verb+Le1+Le2
) --
Ohc
¡digame! 09:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Okay, but returning from the grammatical interlude, isn't the policy in Vietnamese and Polish articles (and probably many other languages with diacritics) on en.wikipedia a reasonable one? They seem to use diacritics correctly, and trust that readers who don't understand them will simply ignore them. I think there is something to be said for using pinyin according to the technical standard, especially since limited software support for diacritics is a thing of the past. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 05:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ JohnBlackburne: Regarding this edit.
It's not a "significant change" to a "long-established guideline". I fixed the wording to accurately reflect how the guideline is applied in articles, and to be more in accord with more authoritative guidelines that (appear to) directly contradict the wording before my edit. MOS:FORLANG, for instance, forbids the use of more than one foreign equivalent in the lead sentence, to prevent cluttering between "Topic X ... is Y." Admittedly, all four of Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles could be taken as just one foreign equivalent, but that would really contradict the spirit of FORLANG, if not the letter, as four between two and four different ways of writing the Mandarin equivalent of the topic's name is more cluttersome than two foreign equivalents that are both written in the same writing system as English.
And I literally can't recall ever seeing a Wikipedia guideline that gave a specific instruction, and linked to an "example" article that had, for as long as I can remember, contradicted said instruction. Seriously, look at the
Li Bai article and tell me where in the first sentence
are both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for [his name]
.
The burden is actually on you to find where the previous wording was supported by a consensus, because otherwise the guideline should be worded descriptively, to reflect how articles on Chinese topics are actually written, and most of the best articles with the most watchers do not conform to your wording. Mao Zedong, for example, has 972 watchers, and I find it hard to believe that none of them have ever read MOS:CHINA if your wording is actually a "long-established guideline".
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
infobox Chinese}}
, it's redundant clutter to repeat it in the opening sentence, and breaks the flow of the text. I have some sympathy for that, especially where people are insisting on additional forms of a name.
Kanguole 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are established by consensus, i.e. by discussion such as here, so here we are.Ideally, yes, but in this case, if you cannot point to a prior consensus for your wording, the default position should be to describe how the majority of prominent articles already are written. That is the de facto consensus when no prior discussion has taken place. Perhaps a large number of obscure articles with one significant contributor each are in accordance with your wording, but the ones that have been pored over by a lot of long-term contributors generally don't seem to be so.
WP:LEAD does not override this guideline, instead it is the other way round.Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If a small group of editors on the Chinese WikiProject or on this talk page (I'm not sure how much overlap there is there) take the view that Chinese articles should be written one way, and the overwhelming community consensus that led to the current wording of MOS:LEAD says otherwise, the latter takes precedence over the former. The one exception is if there are some special arguments to be made for an exception to the general rule which, like I said a few weeks ago on the LEAD talk page, I am open to. But I don't even think the local consensus is against my wording here: the guideline as you reverted it contradicts itself, by citing an article on a well-known Tang poet as an example of the guideline, but the article in question actually contradicts the guideline. It's not like the Li Bai article is overrun with editors who have no understanding of the Chinese language and are enforcing a general guideline that isn't working for Chinese articles; if it wasn't working for Chinese articles, then Chinese articles wouldn't already be overwhelmingly in line with it.
Having both Chinese and pinyin is normal and in line with MOS:FORLANG which has an example with Ukrainian and the Romanisation of it.Except that Ukrainian and the romanization of it are small and generally don't clutter the lead sentence a whole lot; this is not really the same as Chinese articles, of which quite a few have good reason to give two different native script equivalents and some even two or more romanizations.
Having both Traditional and Simplified is unusual and is only done when appropriate. The same is true of other Romanisations, such as for Cantonese.Now we're talking! That's an interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with it, but the guideline here still should account for such problems. Let's say we rewrote it to say that, if it seems appropriate to provide more than one Mandarin romanization or a romanized form of a topolect pronunciation, then only one romanized form should be provided in the lead sentence and the rest should be included in an infobox. We're in quick sand when it comes to, say, removing pinyin romanizations from the lead sentences of Taiwanese articles or all Mandarin romanizations from the lead sentences of Hong Kong articles, but that's another question.
I agree that having multiple Romanisations for Mandarin is normally redundant; pinyin is overwhelmingly used today, and any other adds nothing.Hold on, I didn't say that. When it comes to reliable sources on classical Chinese literature written in English and published by university presses, Wade-Giles still appears to be the preferred system, so cutting WG completely from articles like the aforementioned Li Bai is unacceptable (although I have no problem limiting it to inclusion in the infobox, since Wikipedia is entitled to an in-house style).
As with providing traditional with simplified Chinese it should be left to editors judgement.I don't know. Again, in most articles only one is really relevant, except to people who are very interested in gaining a deep knowledge of the topic. For the average reader, simplified characters are little more than off-topic window-dressing in articles on Tang poets, and the same is true of traditional characters in articles on the films of Zhang Yimou. Even if we are leaving it to editors' judgement, shouldn't we provide this kind of advice for them?
{{
Infobox Chinese}}
. This seems the cleanest and most robust solution to me. It's about time we discuss this, as the original doctrine on the opening sentence–infobox issue was created in
this edit, which, as one can see, dates to July 2004 (12½ years ago), back in Wikipedia's infancy. White Whirlwind
咨 02:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, yes, but in this case, if you cannot point to a prior consensus for your wording, the default position should be to describe how the majority of prominent articles already are written. No, that is not how it works. At the top of this guideline, as on most others, it has
Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. If you therefore want to change the guideline you should first seek consensus, perhaps with a RFC on the particular change you want to make. As White whirlwind noted this has been a long established guideline, one probably thousands of editors have referred to and not had a problem with. It might be time to change it, but it should not be changed lightly.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
At the top of this guideline, as on most others, it has [...]Again, the text you quoted and I cut assumes guidelines are authoritative and already have been formed by consensus. In this case, the clear consensus was already in favour of my wording, as it didn't change an authoritative guideline to say what I wanted it to say; it changed the wording to match how the guideline is already being implemented and apparently has been for a long time. The wording as you restored it is self-contradictory, and you still haven't accounted for this.
If you therefore want to change the guideline you should first seek consensus, perhaps with a RFC on the particular change you want to make.Again, this isn't about what I "want". I don't really care which style we go with (although I lean slightly toward the one in use in the example article over the one prescribed in the text). I would be happy to open an RFC to determine whether we should go with the style prescribed in the current text of the guideline or the style employed in the cited example, but you need to help me figure out exactly what else, if anything, the RFC should be about. (Please read the list of questions above and tell me if I missed anything!)
this has been a long established guideline, one probably thousands of editors have referred to and not had a problem withThen tell me why none of our articles except the stubs no one has edited and very few people have read actually follow it! Admittedly, your "thousands of editors" is likely an exaggeration (the page has 96 watchers, presumably almost all of them among the 373 members of WP:CHINA, and the number of editors who have read and understood the sentence in question and implemented it in writing articles is probably no more than three or four times that number), but I really can't imagine thousands of people have read the guideline carefully enough to be taken as approving of it, but not have read it carefully enough to notice that it contradicts itself.
It might be time to change it, but it should not be changed lightly.It already has been changed. You may not realize it, but the majority of our well-established and frequently-viewed China articles already follow a new, apparently unwritten, version of the guideline. All I did was update the wording to match how it is implemented in articles, including in the Li Bai article. Yes, I admit that I do remember an old version of Wikipedia some years ago that did in fact
include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for [the names of articles on Chinese topics] in [their] first sentence[s], but it is no longer the case. At the very least, if you think the wording should not be updated to match the current trend, then you need to find another example to link to because, currently, the example contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. Personally I would much rather open an RFC to resolve this definitively, but if you are not going to help in forming the RFC question then I can't be held responsible. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
, or in a box to the right in the introduction.was removed. Can you point me to the consensus discussion that decided it should be removed? It seems a significant proportion of our articles, including the example linked, already follow the convention that was established in 2004 as opposed to the more recent wording.
Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in the first sentence.This appears to contradict the example of the Li Bai article and several others, but actually three paragraphs down we get
Where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article a Infobox Chinese box can be used instead of zh. This removes the characters, romanization and pronunciations from the opening sentence, thus making it more readable[.]This means that the wording is on its face self-contradictory. The first sentence of the section should be changed to fix this. the
abefore
Infobox Chineseshould be changed to "an" as well, which is English grammar my Japanese 7th graders know. I'll implement the latter change now, and wait for your approval on the former since you already reverted it once and seem to be still under the impression that it was a substantive change to the nature of the guideline. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This needs to cover proper {{
lang}}
, {{
lang|xx}}
, and {{
zh}}
markup for distinguishing between traditional and simplified Chinese (generally) as well as different Chinese languages and dialects. An informal overview of this can be found
here; we may need additional template work to be able to handle this. E.g. {{
lang-zh_HANS}}
does not exist, etc. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in either the first sentence or in an infobox clearly visible in the lead. The article title itself is normally the pinyin representation with the tone marks omitted: "Mao Zedong", not "Máo Zédōng", unless another spelling is common (see below)."
This policy is absurd. Every article about a foreign language topic on Wikipedia has a little something about the relevant foreign word right after the English word in the article.
Why can't Chinese be normal too?
The decade of debates on the subject which I imagine you must have had to come to this ridiculous policy really makes no difference: it was the wrong conclusion.
This should be changed immediately. You can't see the characters for Li Bai's name when you open the page.
I love having the language box off to the side when you need it to explain some of the complicated aspects of a name or some of the rarer transcriptions, but's that's no reason to make it seem like there are no Chinese characters for the name Li Bai.
Every other langauge (except maybe Japanese?) doesn't do it this way.
"in either the first sentence or in an infobox" should be "in the first sentence and/or in an infobox"
Wake up. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. The two have large overlaps and are both of reasonable sizes that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Szqecs ( talk) 08:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A per these discussions User_talk:Kdm852#Chinese_infobox and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Chinese Naming: There is a question on whether the Template:Chinese infobox should display both Traditional and Simplified Chinese for all relevant subjects, or whether it should omit Simplified or Traditional Chinese depending upon the subject.
If only Traditional or Simplified forms would be displayed, then this could happen:
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
|c=
is displayed in two fields with both typefaces, or are we talking about an auto-converter here?
Szqecs (
talk) 03:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Should the prefix "Sino-" be used for both China and Taiwan? For example, Sino-Mongolian relations. Kaldari ( talk) 22:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Recently the WP:ITN nomination of 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion made me realize that we don't have a consistent style for administrative divisions of China. Here's the full example:
On 21 March 2019, a major explosion occurred at a chemical plant in Chenjiagang (Town), Xiangshui (County), Yancheng, Jiangsu (Province), China.
Each of these parentheses represents an optional descriptor which can be seen in many English-language sources about China. (I have omitted the city level as it is very uncommon to append "city" or "prefecture" to the end of these.) For each level in question ( town, county, province), we want to answer:
Thanks, RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
A Following up the conversation here, there was a consensus that reliable academic sources on China do not use a post-surname comma in their citations but there seemed to be some confusion (and reluctance) about the difficulty involved in creating a new template to deal with the issue.
There's no such need. The existing default templates handle the formatting perfectly well, and how to use the |authormask=
should simply be explained here.
B For people coming here to look at formatting for articles on China, we should repeat the rule at MOS:ROMANIZATION that the (in this case pinyin) romanization must be included for the English Wiki. It's the native name in characters and translation that are optional. (Personally, I've seen both: citations of Chinese sources that have only the characters—making it illegible to most readers without a cut/paste trip to Google Translate—and citations giving only translated names, making it difficult to find the intended source.)
C Whirlwind and specialist publications may follow Chicago Manual style of adding the Chinese characters immediately after the names of authors and titles but our house style is to put foreign text into parentheses. Seeing different formatting in the citations too often seems like it could start bleeding over into the articles; I'd think we should highlight that issue or have an optional citation example using parentheses for the foreign text.
That seems more contentious, though, so I won't emend that part of the guideline pending some discussion here. — LlywelynII 03:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, D
is self-contradictory. Personally, I'm completely in favor of at least permitting use of Wikipedia's standard title case and capitalizations (e.g., Hànxué zhī Shū and Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe). I'm aware specialist publications avoid both (e.g., Hànxué zhī shū and Wenzi gaige chubanshe) but it seems like an eyesore unless the rest of the page follows French conventions as well.
If we're going to advise/mandate following pinyin's internal capitalization rules here, we should make that clearer, possibly link to the relevant article, and use it consistently. (The previous version of the guideline capitalized Hànyǔ Fāngyán Gàiyào but then wrote the publisher's name in the French style.) — LlywelynII 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
|author-mask=
could be used in this way, and it's certainly better than putting everything in the |author=
field, but I still don't think this page should be promoting it.|surname=
and |given=
less confusing than |last=
and |first=
when dealing with Chinese and Japanese names, and especially when mixed with Western names.
Kanguole 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)|author-mask=
and that the option exists to format them correctly (afaik every nation on Earth now defaults to pinyin romanization of Chinese names which are written in this order; as Caradhras admits, that should at this point be as well understood as Beijing and Guangzhou: President Xi/Xi Jinping is on the news every week even if they missed Mao; the template further clarifies exactly what went into each field for the curious), despite the western default of Wikipedia's templates. Using |surname=
instead of |last=
isn't a major issue but it is silly: Chinese people might misunderstand 最后的名字 when they aren't taught better but Americans and Brits know exactly that "last name" is simply
the much more common way to say "family name".
@ CaradhrasAiguo: Stop reverting already. This section makes future similar discussions unnecessary. It specifically refers to PRC, so maps of 200 years ago can still include Taiwan. It also says "indiscriminately", so using a different shade is still acceptable. It contains nothing against consensus. Ythlev ( talk) 00:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Geographyinitiative: The question is whether the Traditional Chinese or Simplified Chinese forms of Standard Mandarin count as the same name or as different names in regards to names of places or people. This determines whether both forms should be displayed in the Template:Chinese infobox, or whether only one or the other should. For example, would a simplified Chinese form of a name of a person in the Republic of China like leader Chiang Kai-shek be considered a "foreign language name" and therefore excluded from the template ( see reasoning in this edit)?
(for people unfamiliar with Chinese history, the Republic of China controlled the Mainland until 1949, then moved to Taiwan, while Simplified Chinese was introduced in Mainland China by the People's Republic of China after that; Chiang never changed his allegiance from the ROC and remained on Taiwan)
This may affect multiple articles, including historical Chinese figures who lived before the advent of simplified Chinese characters so I believe it is necessary to do the RFC here.
For further info see:
Pinging those involved in the first discussion and other interested parties:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it would be wise if we formulate a section giving direction on proper formatting of citations, seeing as there has recently arisen some surprising criticism of the current methods. My suggestion is the standard:
Author 作者 (year). Title 书名 (English translation of title if needed). Location: Publisher, pages.
That's basically what I learned in graduate school and it seems the general standard in the field. If anyone wishes to comment or suggest changes, please go ahead. White Whirlwind 咨 06:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
|author-name-separator=
), but then Wikipedia should cater for a general readership, be consistent, etc.
Kanguole 09:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Except that in terms of cultural convention, the name is written surname first with no comma. That would be kind of a CHINESEVAR thing, which we don't have :) I didn't know that {{ no italics}} shouldn't be used in CS1/CS2 citations so thank you for that. If there is a workaround we should pursue it as use of italics contradicts WP:MOS-ZH (Although people would probably argue that the guideline only applies to body text). Philg88 ♦ talk 10:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
(which could be used for a romanization of the original title) and |trans_title=
(for a translation).{{
sfn}}
/{{
sfnp}}
in large articles: you get a minimal intrusion in the wikitext where you're writing about the subject, you don't have to manually combine repeated refs and make up ref names, and there's a script that checks you got the names and year right. But I recognize that CITEVAR says we shouldn't impose a new citation style on an established and consistently styled article without discusion.
Kanguole 07:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
So the discussion seems to have reached consensus on the following points: the style as I described at the outset, with the additional points that we should be using {{
cite}}
variants in the Works Cited sections and {{
sfnp}}
or similar for inline citations. We also need someone to liaise with a proficient template programmer to sort out a workaround for non-italicization of CJKV characters without using the no-ital tags. Unless anyone objects, I will create the initial section in the MoS in the next day or two. White Whirlwind
咨 04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
+{{
sfnp}}
for longer articles, I don't think we can require it (per CITEVAR). We could recommend it, though. I've made a request at
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles for a new parameter for non-italic titles.
Kanguole 11:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)There is a discussion on possible changes to the formatting of titles in citation templates at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles. People may wish to explain there what we need for Chinese works. Kanguole 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I was trying to check some terms both in Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese by using the sitelinks located in the left-hand toolbar when I ran into the following problem with respect to the consistency of terminology used here at Wikipedia. My question could be formated like this:
Why do we first use the term Traditional Chinese in language tags within the text, and then suddenly use the term Classical Chinese in the sitelinks at the toolbar on the left? Moreover, we use the term Simplified Chinese in the language tags within the text, but in the sitelinks we simply use the term Chinese. By intuition, "Traditional Chinese" could easily get mixed up with plain "Chinese", whereas "Classical Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" could be easily expected to make a different case and have their own sitelinks.
Therefore, I think it'd be more consistent if both terms used in the text would correspond the terms used in the sitelinks at the left-hand toolbar. What do you think? =P Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 16:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! I ran into article ( Fuji and noticed that there are some inconsistencies with the formatting of sentences that include both Chinese and English terms. Let me give an example in order to clarify myself a little bit. In the article, it is said that (numerations added):
Beginning around the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the fuji method and written characters changed from (2) 扶箕 (1) "support the sieve" (4) (spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)
So in a nutshell, we have (1) the English translation (support the sieve), (2) hanzi (扶箕), (3) romanization of the word (not present in the aforementioned quote), and (4) an explanation for the English term ((spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)). See, in the Japan-related articles there is already a practice on how to deal with this kind of sentences, and the formatting of sentences follows the exact structure as mentioned above ((1) - (2) - (3) - (4)). This is handled by a language tag {{nihongo}}. For example, in the Shinnyo-en article, a similar piece of text is handled like this:
Joyful donations (歓喜 kangi, monetary contribution to the organization)
In plain code, this would appear as: {{nihongo|Joyful donations|歓喜|kangi|monetary contribution to the organization}}
Therefore, I'd like to suggest that we will adapt the same practice as the China-related articles. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 17:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the "Jiedushi" subsection. The rest of the guide is routine stuff. This on the other hand was extremely specific. I can't see it comes up enough to justify its inclusion. On a search for ~jiedushi, almost all of the 500 or so occurences—besides the "Jiedushi" article itself—consist of "military governor (jiedushi)", and are articles on specific individual people (jiedushi) or year articles that wikilink to the main "Jiedushi" article. (The other listed ways to use the term are even less likely to come up.) Anyone who uses it can easily see how it's used in other pages if needed. The vast majority editing China-related articles will probably never need to.
The addition was originally proposed by Nlu (pinged) in Jan 2008 for the Naming conventions (Chinese) guideline and inserted [1] there. A few years later it was merged into here [2] as it didn't fit that page. If anyone wants to restore it feel free. – 146.199.151.33 ( talk) 23:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
There's an issue I'd like to bring up for discussion. I have noticed that a couple of editors have adopted a practice of adding information to articles (mostly on people from the Warring States and Three Kingdoms periods, but probably more) and citing as their references the dynastic histories, in particular the Shiji and the San guo zhi. This, I believe, is problematic. I strongly believe that these sources should be treated as primary sources—notwithstanding the fact that they were of course originally secondary or tertiary sources, albeit at a time many long centuries in the past—that for Wikipedia articles we should avoid using, and that we instead should stick to the modern biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias edited by Sinologists, of which there are now several of quite high quality. I would like any and all to please share their thoughts. White Whirlwind 咨 22:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! Is anyone here capable to create a similar template for Chinese as there already exists for the Japan-related articles ( Template:Nihongo and [Template:Nihongo2]])? A concrete example where to utilize such would be at the Yiguandao article, we we have:
Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 19:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Beginning around the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the fuji method and written characters changed from (2) 扶箕 (1) "support the sieve" (4) (spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)
Joyful donations (歓喜 kangi, monetary contribution to the organization)
{{
Zh}}
template except in leads because of its bulky and clunky output. The standard formatting in Sinological literature for a Chinese term is basically thus: "English term/translation" (pinyin 漢字), where the quotation marks around the English term are used only when necessary. An example could be: "often known as 'Chairman Mao' (Máo zhǔxí 毛主席)", or "was promoted to gentleman of the household (zhōngláng 中郎)." The {{
nihongo}}
template inverts the romanization and characters, which is why I avoid it, too, when Japanese terms arise. White Whirlwind
咨 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)I started a discussion, still ongoing, about the China/Taiwan naming issue: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#China and Taiwan naming issue. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The monk Xuanzang apparently died on '5 February 664'. My Japanese 電子辞書 tells me that he died in '麟徳1 (664)', so I assume by ' 5 February' we mean the fifth day of the second month of the Chinese calendar, but should we have a definitive guideline on this point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Does this project cover articles related to Taiwan and overseas Chinese? If so this needs to be made clear in the lead. The title would be unfit and should be changed to "Chinese-related". Szqecs ( talk) 10:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where the misapprehension came from that "only the first word is capitalized" but leaving aside that's not what we usually do; leaving aside that it's not what we should do, since it's non-obvious to English-language editors and will—for the duration of the policy—produce constant makework removing corrections and moving pages around since such a policy violates basic English-language title formatting and our own usual MOS policy; it appears to be simply wrong. Google doesn't make this easy to see but the go-to guide on proper use of Pinyin capitalizes each word of book titles (as e.g. Honglou Meng) where it doesn't just combine them (as Chunqiu). Pending some very powerful citation from one of these native authoritative sources (and note the standard capitalization being observed by the citation from the people who are actually quoting them), we need to scrap that rule and its LOCALCONSENSUS and fix the mistaken formatting that's been used in the infoboxes of various book pages around the encyclopedia. — LlywelynII 22:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of reigniting an old discussion, I have a few questions about the use of pinyin tone marks in the body of articles.
When I'm working on Chinese-related articles, I find myself wondering how/whether to include pinyin tone marks. The Manual of Style says they should only be included in parentheses (using the "zh" template) or in infoboxes, but that could lead to awkward constructions like the following: "The city of Nanjing ( Chinese: 南京; pinyin: Nánjīng) ...," where the same word is repeated twice ("Nanjing," "Nánjīng").
Wouldn't the following flow much better in such situations? "The city of Nánjīng ( Chinese: 南京) ..." Someone who doesn't understand tone markings is likely to ignore them, and someone who does understand them will want them to be there (especially if they don't know the tones beforehand). For people who know Chinese, seeing a new word without tone markings is jarring, because one can't pronounce a Chinese word without the tones, but for people who don't know Chinese, there's little harm in the tone markings being there. In any case, it seems to me that sentence flow is inhibited more by long parentheses than by tone markings in the text.
So, to sum up: when should I include pinyin (with tones) in the "zh" template, and would it be useful to revisit the policy on tone marks in the body of articles? Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
zh}}
and/or {{
infobox Chinese}}
), so the duplication mentioned above will only happen in the opening sentence of the
Nanjing article. In the
Nanjing case, I see that only {{
infobox Chinese}}
is used, so it is not even in the lead. The bodies of articles will just say "Nanjing", with a link at the first use in other articles.
Kanguole 09:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC){{
Infobox Chinese}}
template or just use the lookup tool of their choice. White Whirlwind
咨 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)I agree about truly "knowing" a character, but also point out that one can often guess likely pronunciation (without tone) from the radical. Regardless, there are still many names that native speakers (or advanced second-language speakers) won't be able to pronounce from the characters, and pinyin tone marks would be helpful for them as well. I really do hope it becomes standard in Sinological literature, especially now that pinyin input is trivial on modern computers. Is your thinking that we should wait for greater adoption in Sinological literature before switching over, and what level of adoption are we looking for? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
verb+Le1+Le2
) --
Ohc
¡digame! 09:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Okay, but returning from the grammatical interlude, isn't the policy in Vietnamese and Polish articles (and probably many other languages with diacritics) on en.wikipedia a reasonable one? They seem to use diacritics correctly, and trust that readers who don't understand them will simply ignore them. I think there is something to be said for using pinyin according to the technical standard, especially since limited software support for diacritics is a thing of the past. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 05:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ JohnBlackburne: Regarding this edit.
It's not a "significant change" to a "long-established guideline". I fixed the wording to accurately reflect how the guideline is applied in articles, and to be more in accord with more authoritative guidelines that (appear to) directly contradict the wording before my edit. MOS:FORLANG, for instance, forbids the use of more than one foreign equivalent in the lead sentence, to prevent cluttering between "Topic X ... is Y." Admittedly, all four of Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles could be taken as just one foreign equivalent, but that would really contradict the spirit of FORLANG, if not the letter, as four between two and four different ways of writing the Mandarin equivalent of the topic's name is more cluttersome than two foreign equivalents that are both written in the same writing system as English.
And I literally can't recall ever seeing a Wikipedia guideline that gave a specific instruction, and linked to an "example" article that had, for as long as I can remember, contradicted said instruction. Seriously, look at the
Li Bai article and tell me where in the first sentence
are both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for [his name]
.
The burden is actually on you to find where the previous wording was supported by a consensus, because otherwise the guideline should be worded descriptively, to reflect how articles on Chinese topics are actually written, and most of the best articles with the most watchers do not conform to your wording. Mao Zedong, for example, has 972 watchers, and I find it hard to believe that none of them have ever read MOS:CHINA if your wording is actually a "long-established guideline".
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
infobox Chinese}}
, it's redundant clutter to repeat it in the opening sentence, and breaks the flow of the text. I have some sympathy for that, especially where people are insisting on additional forms of a name.
Kanguole 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are established by consensus, i.e. by discussion such as here, so here we are.Ideally, yes, but in this case, if you cannot point to a prior consensus for your wording, the default position should be to describe how the majority of prominent articles already are written. That is the de facto consensus when no prior discussion has taken place. Perhaps a large number of obscure articles with one significant contributor each are in accordance with your wording, but the ones that have been pored over by a lot of long-term contributors generally don't seem to be so.
WP:LEAD does not override this guideline, instead it is the other way round.Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If a small group of editors on the Chinese WikiProject or on this talk page (I'm not sure how much overlap there is there) take the view that Chinese articles should be written one way, and the overwhelming community consensus that led to the current wording of MOS:LEAD says otherwise, the latter takes precedence over the former. The one exception is if there are some special arguments to be made for an exception to the general rule which, like I said a few weeks ago on the LEAD talk page, I am open to. But I don't even think the local consensus is against my wording here: the guideline as you reverted it contradicts itself, by citing an article on a well-known Tang poet as an example of the guideline, but the article in question actually contradicts the guideline. It's not like the Li Bai article is overrun with editors who have no understanding of the Chinese language and are enforcing a general guideline that isn't working for Chinese articles; if it wasn't working for Chinese articles, then Chinese articles wouldn't already be overwhelmingly in line with it.
Having both Chinese and pinyin is normal and in line with MOS:FORLANG which has an example with Ukrainian and the Romanisation of it.Except that Ukrainian and the romanization of it are small and generally don't clutter the lead sentence a whole lot; this is not really the same as Chinese articles, of which quite a few have good reason to give two different native script equivalents and some even two or more romanizations.
Having both Traditional and Simplified is unusual and is only done when appropriate. The same is true of other Romanisations, such as for Cantonese.Now we're talking! That's an interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with it, but the guideline here still should account for such problems. Let's say we rewrote it to say that, if it seems appropriate to provide more than one Mandarin romanization or a romanized form of a topolect pronunciation, then only one romanized form should be provided in the lead sentence and the rest should be included in an infobox. We're in quick sand when it comes to, say, removing pinyin romanizations from the lead sentences of Taiwanese articles or all Mandarin romanizations from the lead sentences of Hong Kong articles, but that's another question.
I agree that having multiple Romanisations for Mandarin is normally redundant; pinyin is overwhelmingly used today, and any other adds nothing.Hold on, I didn't say that. When it comes to reliable sources on classical Chinese literature written in English and published by university presses, Wade-Giles still appears to be the preferred system, so cutting WG completely from articles like the aforementioned Li Bai is unacceptable (although I have no problem limiting it to inclusion in the infobox, since Wikipedia is entitled to an in-house style).
As with providing traditional with simplified Chinese it should be left to editors judgement.I don't know. Again, in most articles only one is really relevant, except to people who are very interested in gaining a deep knowledge of the topic. For the average reader, simplified characters are little more than off-topic window-dressing in articles on Tang poets, and the same is true of traditional characters in articles on the films of Zhang Yimou. Even if we are leaving it to editors' judgement, shouldn't we provide this kind of advice for them?
{{
Infobox Chinese}}
. This seems the cleanest and most robust solution to me. It's about time we discuss this, as the original doctrine on the opening sentence–infobox issue was created in
this edit, which, as one can see, dates to July 2004 (12½ years ago), back in Wikipedia's infancy. White Whirlwind
咨 02:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, yes, but in this case, if you cannot point to a prior consensus for your wording, the default position should be to describe how the majority of prominent articles already are written. No, that is not how it works. At the top of this guideline, as on most others, it has
Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. If you therefore want to change the guideline you should first seek consensus, perhaps with a RFC on the particular change you want to make. As White whirlwind noted this has been a long established guideline, one probably thousands of editors have referred to and not had a problem with. It might be time to change it, but it should not be changed lightly.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
At the top of this guideline, as on most others, it has [...]Again, the text you quoted and I cut assumes guidelines are authoritative and already have been formed by consensus. In this case, the clear consensus was already in favour of my wording, as it didn't change an authoritative guideline to say what I wanted it to say; it changed the wording to match how the guideline is already being implemented and apparently has been for a long time. The wording as you restored it is self-contradictory, and you still haven't accounted for this.
If you therefore want to change the guideline you should first seek consensus, perhaps with a RFC on the particular change you want to make.Again, this isn't about what I "want". I don't really care which style we go with (although I lean slightly toward the one in use in the example article over the one prescribed in the text). I would be happy to open an RFC to determine whether we should go with the style prescribed in the current text of the guideline or the style employed in the cited example, but you need to help me figure out exactly what else, if anything, the RFC should be about. (Please read the list of questions above and tell me if I missed anything!)
this has been a long established guideline, one probably thousands of editors have referred to and not had a problem withThen tell me why none of our articles except the stubs no one has edited and very few people have read actually follow it! Admittedly, your "thousands of editors" is likely an exaggeration (the page has 96 watchers, presumably almost all of them among the 373 members of WP:CHINA, and the number of editors who have read and understood the sentence in question and implemented it in writing articles is probably no more than three or four times that number), but I really can't imagine thousands of people have read the guideline carefully enough to be taken as approving of it, but not have read it carefully enough to notice that it contradicts itself.
It might be time to change it, but it should not be changed lightly.It already has been changed. You may not realize it, but the majority of our well-established and frequently-viewed China articles already follow a new, apparently unwritten, version of the guideline. All I did was update the wording to match how it is implemented in articles, including in the Li Bai article. Yes, I admit that I do remember an old version of Wikipedia some years ago that did in fact
include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for [the names of articles on Chinese topics] in [their] first sentence[s], but it is no longer the case. At the very least, if you think the wording should not be updated to match the current trend, then you need to find another example to link to because, currently, the example contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. Personally I would much rather open an RFC to resolve this definitively, but if you are not going to help in forming the RFC question then I can't be held responsible. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
, or in a box to the right in the introduction.was removed. Can you point me to the consensus discussion that decided it should be removed? It seems a significant proportion of our articles, including the example linked, already follow the convention that was established in 2004 as opposed to the more recent wording.
Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in the first sentence.This appears to contradict the example of the Li Bai article and several others, but actually three paragraphs down we get
Where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article a Infobox Chinese box can be used instead of zh. This removes the characters, romanization and pronunciations from the opening sentence, thus making it more readable[.]This means that the wording is on its face self-contradictory. The first sentence of the section should be changed to fix this. the
abefore
Infobox Chineseshould be changed to "an" as well, which is English grammar my Japanese 7th graders know. I'll implement the latter change now, and wait for your approval on the former since you already reverted it once and seem to be still under the impression that it was a substantive change to the nature of the guideline. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This needs to cover proper {{
lang}}
, {{
lang|xx}}
, and {{
zh}}
markup for distinguishing between traditional and simplified Chinese (generally) as well as different Chinese languages and dialects. An informal overview of this can be found
here; we may need additional template work to be able to handle this. E.g. {{
lang-zh_HANS}}
does not exist, etc. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in either the first sentence or in an infobox clearly visible in the lead. The article title itself is normally the pinyin representation with the tone marks omitted: "Mao Zedong", not "Máo Zédōng", unless another spelling is common (see below)."
This policy is absurd. Every article about a foreign language topic on Wikipedia has a little something about the relevant foreign word right after the English word in the article.
Why can't Chinese be normal too?
The decade of debates on the subject which I imagine you must have had to come to this ridiculous policy really makes no difference: it was the wrong conclusion.
This should be changed immediately. You can't see the characters for Li Bai's name when you open the page.
I love having the language box off to the side when you need it to explain some of the complicated aspects of a name or some of the rarer transcriptions, but's that's no reason to make it seem like there are no Chinese characters for the name Li Bai.
Every other langauge (except maybe Japanese?) doesn't do it this way.
"in either the first sentence or in an infobox" should be "in the first sentence and/or in an infobox"
Wake up. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. The two have large overlaps and are both of reasonable sizes that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Szqecs ( talk) 08:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A per these discussions User_talk:Kdm852#Chinese_infobox and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Chinese Naming: There is a question on whether the Template:Chinese infobox should display both Traditional and Simplified Chinese for all relevant subjects, or whether it should omit Simplified or Traditional Chinese depending upon the subject.
If only Traditional or Simplified forms would be displayed, then this could happen:
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
|c=
is displayed in two fields with both typefaces, or are we talking about an auto-converter here?
Szqecs (
talk) 03:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Should the prefix "Sino-" be used for both China and Taiwan? For example, Sino-Mongolian relations. Kaldari ( talk) 22:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Recently the WP:ITN nomination of 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion made me realize that we don't have a consistent style for administrative divisions of China. Here's the full example:
On 21 March 2019, a major explosion occurred at a chemical plant in Chenjiagang (Town), Xiangshui (County), Yancheng, Jiangsu (Province), China.
Each of these parentheses represents an optional descriptor which can be seen in many English-language sources about China. (I have omitted the city level as it is very uncommon to append "city" or "prefecture" to the end of these.) For each level in question ( town, county, province), we want to answer:
Thanks, RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
A Following up the conversation here, there was a consensus that reliable academic sources on China do not use a post-surname comma in their citations but there seemed to be some confusion (and reluctance) about the difficulty involved in creating a new template to deal with the issue.
There's no such need. The existing default templates handle the formatting perfectly well, and how to use the |authormask=
should simply be explained here.
B For people coming here to look at formatting for articles on China, we should repeat the rule at MOS:ROMANIZATION that the (in this case pinyin) romanization must be included for the English Wiki. It's the native name in characters and translation that are optional. (Personally, I've seen both: citations of Chinese sources that have only the characters—making it illegible to most readers without a cut/paste trip to Google Translate—and citations giving only translated names, making it difficult to find the intended source.)
C Whirlwind and specialist publications may follow Chicago Manual style of adding the Chinese characters immediately after the names of authors and titles but our house style is to put foreign text into parentheses. Seeing different formatting in the citations too often seems like it could start bleeding over into the articles; I'd think we should highlight that issue or have an optional citation example using parentheses for the foreign text.
That seems more contentious, though, so I won't emend that part of the guideline pending some discussion here. — LlywelynII 03:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, D
is self-contradictory. Personally, I'm completely in favor of at least permitting use of Wikipedia's standard title case and capitalizations (e.g., Hànxué zhī Shū and Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe). I'm aware specialist publications avoid both (e.g., Hànxué zhī shū and Wenzi gaige chubanshe) but it seems like an eyesore unless the rest of the page follows French conventions as well.
If we're going to advise/mandate following pinyin's internal capitalization rules here, we should make that clearer, possibly link to the relevant article, and use it consistently. (The previous version of the guideline capitalized Hànyǔ Fāngyán Gàiyào but then wrote the publisher's name in the French style.) — LlywelynII 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
|author-mask=
could be used in this way, and it's certainly better than putting everything in the |author=
field, but I still don't think this page should be promoting it.|surname=
and |given=
less confusing than |last=
and |first=
when dealing with Chinese and Japanese names, and especially when mixed with Western names.
Kanguole 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)|author-mask=
and that the option exists to format them correctly (afaik every nation on Earth now defaults to pinyin romanization of Chinese names which are written in this order; as Caradhras admits, that should at this point be as well understood as Beijing and Guangzhou: President Xi/Xi Jinping is on the news every week even if they missed Mao; the template further clarifies exactly what went into each field for the curious), despite the western default of Wikipedia's templates. Using |surname=
instead of |last=
isn't a major issue but it is silly: Chinese people might misunderstand 最后的名字 when they aren't taught better but Americans and Brits know exactly that "last name" is simply
the much more common way to say "family name".
@ CaradhrasAiguo: Stop reverting already. This section makes future similar discussions unnecessary. It specifically refers to PRC, so maps of 200 years ago can still include Taiwan. It also says "indiscriminately", so using a different shade is still acceptable. It contains nothing against consensus. Ythlev ( talk) 00:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Geographyinitiative: The question is whether the Traditional Chinese or Simplified Chinese forms of Standard Mandarin count as the same name or as different names in regards to names of places or people. This determines whether both forms should be displayed in the Template:Chinese infobox, or whether only one or the other should. For example, would a simplified Chinese form of a name of a person in the Republic of China like leader Chiang Kai-shek be considered a "foreign language name" and therefore excluded from the template ( see reasoning in this edit)?
(for people unfamiliar with Chinese history, the Republic of China controlled the Mainland until 1949, then moved to Taiwan, while Simplified Chinese was introduced in Mainland China by the People's Republic of China after that; Chiang never changed his allegiance from the ROC and remained on Taiwan)
This may affect multiple articles, including historical Chinese figures who lived before the advent of simplified Chinese characters so I believe it is necessary to do the RFC here.
For further info see:
Pinging those involved in the first discussion and other interested parties:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)