1159:"The guy above" is back, but not for long. It is amazing that so much has gone on in my absence. In my opinion, Taoster is subconsciously struggling with the "superior" Chinese characters himself and as a result he is slamming his judgement and interpretation on my comments. I never said Traditional Chinese is superior to Simplied Chinese. Say, if you paint the White House pink because you believe pink is a more popular color, then when I complain about your action, it DOES NOT mean I think White is a superior color. I am getting tired of this debate, it is getting nowhere. Since this a public forum, I voiced my opinion for all other to hear. Hypocrisy or not is upto individuals to interprete. If Taoster didn't hear the message because he is too obsessed with his S. Chinese, so be it. What do I get if I win the debate? Why should I care? But Knowledge loses when a more precise information (in this case the text) is reduced to a lesser representation.
801:
could understand me. If I wanted to be language-nationalistic I would write in Gaelic -- but in the U.S. who would bother to decipher what I had written? (Besides I'd have to hire a translator as I can't speak it either.) So why would anybody writing in
Chinese want to freeze out one or another language community? There would actually be a point in writing versions in HK extra hanzi, Taiwanese in traditional characters sprinkled with roman letters to represent sounds for Taiwanese words that don't have characters... But when we are writing a page intended for people whose mother tongue is English, then I think the intention should be to provide them with help. I doubt that many Anglo types would benefit much from character texts tailored for speakers of min2 bei3 hua4.
1070:. It is the process by which needlessly redundant characters are conflated to alleviate the hardships of learning rarely used variant characters. Are you aware that in the Chinese lexicon, long before the Traditional system was conceived, there existed hundreds of thousands of characters and variations thereof? The relationship of 字 versus 词 is greatly emphasized in the language, with modern "words" being formed out of characters that are thousands of years old. Notwithstanding, there are only a handful of characters which have been conflated in Simplified, and even then the likelihood of confusing one 词 for another (given the context) is rare. -
336:
Knowledge, but not on the
English version -- no matter what I do to try to "view charset". A few days ago I edited something that was originally written in Chinese and the whole thing got turned into sludge. The same thing will happen on my Mac if I try to paste from a text only GB or big5 file into any program working on OS X. There is contextual (invisible) information that gets copied along if you are pasting from a Unicode-aware program. For instance, copying from the Oasis browser to one of the OS X word processors works perfectly. But copying the same text from a vanilla word processor to a OS X, Unicode capable WP will fail.
732:
is concretely visible). About the liang2 variant character, I have inquired as to such a character with my cousin who attends
Beijing Daxue in the Mainland, and he has, in turn, contacted a member of the faculty as to this dilemma. As of now, I am awaiting his response. In the mean time, I have also consulted the《词海》and the《新华词典》at the library and neither has given mention to this character in the context which you have described. I would be very grateful if you could provide me with the usage of the character in a sentence, though a phrase containing the character would suffice just as well.
676:
different meaning. (It's like using "4" as the equivalent of "for", writing "5 4 2 dollars" and having somebody who treats these symbols at their original meaning interpreting it not to mean "5 for 2 dollars" but as "542 dollars".) The character formed by xin1 (heart) and jing1 (capital) is a traditional
Chinese character pronounced liang2 and meaning sorrowful. But in simplified Chinese it means "to be startled." It would be easy to fail to see the need to rewrite this character, but a planned substitution table like the one included in NJStar would take care of it automatically.
548:
is a significant number of people from both groups who are not comfortable with the other writing system. And the answer to (2) is yes. There are a fairly large number of many-to-one mappings going from traditional to simplified. There is no good way to do the one-to-many mappings that happen in going from simplified to traditional. The free
Macintosh software gives you a way to select alternatives, but only on a non-global basis (fixing them one by one). On the Windows side, one can buy NJStar and try its artificial intelligence feature to make the translation.
360:
processing software called Taste, and I told it to save a file as "text-only" and then counted the characters, the list that I got back inevitably had certain very low-frequency Hanzi that had nothing to do with the text I had typed into Taste. The only thing that could have happened was that formatting stuff was being copied over as "unprintable" characters and then getting interpreted as
Chinese and counted... So there is frequently more than meets the eye.
31:
375:
but one way or another there is probably a setting that tells the user's computer which character set to use, and it pre-empts the user of old operating systems and browsers from setting up so they can see things in UTF-8. (They can change things in their browser, but the
Knowledge settings take priority, so it is as though the user had not re-set anything at all.)
356:
someplace like the
Chinese Knowledge. In that case you will not get Chinese text, whereas if you use two programs that are Unicode responsive you can paste back and forth. It rather blew my mind when I first saw it because I use Edit II all the time because it does not put hidden formatting stuff into supposedly text-only files.
253:, as Feng can also mean "wind", but as searching under Chinese Phoenix will lead the searcher to article anyway, I think it can be left alone as it can still be accessed by people who don't know the still obscure term of Fenghuang. English if possible, to avoid conflict between people of different tongues, and redirections.
261:. I have no idea what a Fenghuang is, and Im pretty sure someone with no Chinese background (as opposed to some Chinese background) would know what it is. We should avoid using Chinese phrases if it is almost never used by westerners and cannot be recognized by people not fluent in Chinese. In the past two weeks,
957:
What you did is analogous to replacing a
Shakespeare with an abridged version from the Cliff's notes. It is unrelated to which version sells more, nor which one is understandable by more people. When you don't know T. Chinese, no one will blame you for using S. Chinese. But overwritting T. Chinese
800:
If I were running a political campaign and I wanted to appeal to
Hispanic and Anglo voters, I would not restrict myself to writing in Spanish, in English, and certainly not in Esperanto either. I would want to communicate my ideas in such a way that all the people whose thinking I wanted to influence
731:
Actually, Xiang4 as in Haoxiang, Xiangpian, and etc. is written in Simplified with 像 (danren pang + xiang). Furthermore, 象 can also be used in both Simplified and Traditional to mean a likeness or a symbol (as you would imagine, the striking image of a large mammal is used to exemplify something that
547:
There are a couple of questions involved here: (1) Are native speakers of Chinese educated using traditional Chinese comfortable reading simplified characters, and vice-versa. (2) Is any information lost if a text is translated from traditional to simplified? I think the answeer to (1) is that there
355:
That's got it backwards. If you use the vanilla OS X editor, it will do a "plain text" file, o.k. That is, it looks like text only. But the behavior of that text, when copied and pasted somewhere else, will be different from the behavior when text is copied from, e.g., TeachText, and then pasted into
1046:
Why don't you quote some other text where several Traditional Chinese characters are folding into the same character. E.g. Fa (as in hair, emit), Gan (as in dry, work, tree truck, intervene), Mian (as in noodle, face), Hou (as in after and queen), Li (as in lane and inside), Zhou (as in the surname
984:
Simplified) inherantly possess the same, unaltered meaning regardless of the number of strokes. Unless of course you're talking about calligraphy, in which case I'll agree with you that replacing complex Traditional characters with obscene markings is a crime to the language and its people. Using an
716:
If you have only seen it in those contexts it must mean that you have only seen it being borrowed to use as a simplified character (it served as a traditional simplified character before it was made official by the PRC). Pronounced liang2 or liang4 it is entry 10980 in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of
534:
Yes, a user was suggesting that because Traditional is older in usage than Simplified, changing Simplified to Traditional for the Mandarin subsection somehow "violated" the basic rules governing the Chinese language. I was merely trying to point out that a high percentage of people educated in China
1588:
I agree. There are lots of worthwhile history books and other such resources floating around that were written when Wade-Giles was the U.S. standard. There are other sources that use the French romanization. Many names are given according to the system somebody (the French, I think it was) made for
1264:
What good is an article if no one can understand it? The purpose of Knowledge is to convey knowledge; a contributor's main duty is to provide approachable and understandable texts for whomever may wish to benefit from them. And the last time I checked, most Mainlanders were quite capable of reading
883:
I am only one human being, and I do not represent the opinion of any preassembled group, but I suspect that the majority of people who contribute to Knowledge are in favor of doing everything within reason to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. It costs almost nothing to have both a simplified
363:
Anyway, my concern is with the Knowledge handling of Hanzi. I think it may be necessary to put jpg images of characters on the English side. Otherwise at least some people like me who do not always use the newest browsers will be unable to see anything but "comic strip swear words". (My university
1623:
Another thing, I think it would be helpful to have an article on standard Mandarin pronunciation so that well educated people (and especially newscasters) could avoid mispronouncing things like the name of the new spacecraft and dog lovers could avoid referring to their pets by a mispronounciation
1593:
Why should simplified and traditional characters be limited to certain subjects? It's useful info and it doesn't hurt to put them in. Jiang Zemin is in traditional characters in a traditional character newspaper. It is not like that just because he's in the mainland, the traditional version of his
1583:
People may see things in different context (e.g. Ch'ing vs. Qing) and wonder if the transliterations are the same thing. Maybe inserting "Chiang Tse-min" into the Jiang Zemin article is a bit unnecessary, but for topics that are old enough to have been commonly referred to with a non Hanyu Pinyin
1572:
Let WG die a natural death. Provide traditional Chinese characters for people from Taiwan and Malaysia, Singapore, etc. and simplified for people from mainland China. Provide pinyin. Provide a transliteration table linked to articles that use pinyin. (There are some atrocious mispronunciations out
675:
I agree that we should accomodate everyone. Also, it should be noted that is can be extremely difficult for someone who is accustomed to simplified characters to realize that s/he is writing a simplified character, and that the character written written may have, as a traditional form, an entirely
485:
I am not entirely agree at all to this proposal. Both Traditional and Simplified Chinese are in signifcant use. I would sugguest one simple rule without worrying about what kind of respects or timing for either parties of Chinese character users: Incorporates both form of Chinese characters at all
374:
Viewing pages with hanzi using Mac OS X works o.k., but users who do not have that system on their Macintosh computers probably will not be able to see hanzi on the English pages. I'm not sure how the HTML is set up for the entire Knowledge, or even whether that is the coding system actually used,
1537:
Obviously there's still some ambiguities -- for instance, Nanjing is popularly known in its pinyin form as well as post-office (Nanking Massacre) or even Beijing/Peking. I personally think the article title should be in hanyu pinyin with transliterations into other common romanizations within the
1255:
Don't you think that it would be silly if I prefer "color" to "colour" and so I change every "colour" in Knowledge to "color"? If you really modify my writing then I will not complain, but if you simply replace my writing with "identical one" then it is not a real edit in my mind and I certainly
618:
Very well. What is relevant here is that principle dialect of the Mainland, Guoyu or Putonghua, corresponds to the Simplified set. That's it. Again, I have absolutely no objections and grievances if the articles were to contain Traditional and Simplified simultaneously, but to say that one system
335:
Brief question: Are the people who insert hanzi into English texts actually getting them to stick? Possibly it is just my browser (which normally does just fine with Unicode as well as GB and big5), but these characters are not coming through for me. I can see them fine on the Chinese version of
1515:
Yes, several municipalities have overriden the Legislative Yuan mandate, including Taipei. Methinks stuff with popular non-hanyu pinyin names should use that, with transliteration into hanyu pinyin (and any other romanizations popular for it), and articles on more recent things which are largely
684:
Sorry, but I am not familiar with the Traditional character from your description. Do you mean 哀 (ai2), sorrowful, or 椋 (liang2), a type of bird? There is also an obscure character which combines vehicle and capital, though its meaning is not sorrowful but rather some ancient cart. Just a query.
1122:
the thesis in your original article in which that you seem to think that the use of anything other than Traditional is "a disrespect to the Chinese language"? Those are your words, not mine. Furthermore, unless you are completely misreading my responses, my only reason for altering the Mandarin
218:
Jiang has said much I would like to say. I would take the old style since it is more self-explanatory to the non-Chinese readers. BTW two people, canadian or not, can't physically change the world but their ideas can change the world by very extensive preachings. Just my encouraging thought. :)
1085:
Please do not confuse the two matters. We are talking about if it is a proper behaviour to change character sets in a well-written article, not about which character set is supreme. My point of view is, the choice of the character set comes to the first one who added a Chinese term. Since most
871:
Different meaning, yes, but knowledge in Chinese is measured by ones ability to understand compound characters. Even in Wenyan, the likelihood of mistaking one meaning for another in any given 词 by a learned reader is improbable. Consider 禪修定樂 -- if you understand the context, then you cannot
359:
That, in turn, is another instance of when a "text-only" file is not really "text-only." I made some software that will count the number of times each Chinese character occurs in a text-only file, and give you a list. When I used my favorite (10 years old and still working fine in OS 9) word
1194:
Your comments really seem to be both self-serving and self-defeating at the same time. While you ended your last message with the all-too-common "This is my last stab at the topic and I won't be returning because my ego has been depleted" clincher, what are the odds that you are reading this
508:
article. The only reason why I changed the entirety of the Mandarin proverbs to the Simplified set is just that: Speakers of Mandarin will have a high enough chance of understanding the Simplified characters whereas their Traditional counterparts may not be as familiar. While the majority of
236:
My mother said the problem with translating Chinese things to English is that there are so many different tongues within the Chinese culture, catonese, mandarin, and things get chaotic when each want the romanji to be based upon their pronounciation. What I suggest is, use a direct English
198:
My main concern is that with this more concise system, you rely on people to know what character or romanization system you're using (or if they don't they'll have to click on the link or put their cursor over the link to find out). Either the reader knows (that one set of characters is in
509:
schoolchildren educated in the Mainland will learn to read Traditional proficiently, they are nonetheless native to the Simplified set, so hence the change. But hey, if you want to reference the Traditional characters alongside the Simplified ones (or vice versa), then more power to you. -
1492:
Curiously, I've never seen anyone from Taiwan actually render their own name or the name of a location in tongyong. The system that people use is WG minus the apostrophes. One problem with tongyong (or another other romanization) is that people from Taiwan aren't familar with any of
1482:
I do think that all articles which include hanyu pinyin because that is the closest thing to a standard Chinese transliteration. The article title should be the form more commonly used which may be hanyu or something else. Taipei for example, is taibei in both hanyu and tongyong
585:
To associate a language with mere politics is the greatest travesty of language-kind. I really have nothing against either of the systems; in fact, I do think that Traditional is much more refined though Simplified also has its positive points. It's just a matter of practicality.
565:
Thanks for your input. While I do agree that a certain gap exists between users of the two character sets, I have personally gone through the converted text to insure against ambiguities and erroneous character usage. And, as with most idioms, a bit of guesswork may be involved.
551:
I think the ideal would be to compose in traditional, translate to simplified, and then make both versions available. One way would be to have a link to separate versions of the text in the article on, e.g., Chinese poems. That way both versions of the text will be correct.
1177:. Each romanized pinyin character and phrase carries the same meaning as the S.Chinese counterpart. Per Taoster's argument, we can abandon all Chinese writings because romanized pinyin can do the same job. That will be my last words on this topic. Signing off...
1292:
I think we should anglicize Oriental names and list them accordingly. If the family name is Woo and the first name Shino; then we should write Shino Woo; not Woo Shino. This is the English wikipedia and we need to treat all names similarily; regardless of origin.
704:
Could you provide an example as to the usage of the Traditional form? I have never used nor have seen usage of Jing1 outside of the context of being startled, as in 惊天动地, 惊人之举, or 惊涛骇浪, all having more or less the same meaning of fear and the instillment thereof.
207:) beforehand or clicks on the link. Whereas with the current system, this information is discovered by simply reading it. There seems to be benefits and drawbacks for both--conciseness vs. clarity. And yes, those two articles are important and should be started.
378:
I just got a university-provided computer that is Unicode based, and will have a look using Mozilla on that computer. Probably the hanzi will show up there too. Translitional periods between major operating systems changes are bound to have problems like this.
969:
So you're saying that people uninterested in Shakespeare (and who have not been "forced" in reading his plays) will voluntarily go out and purchase Cliff's Notes and thusly increase the sales of such texts to greater amounts than that of Shakespeare's works?
879:
The purpose of educational efforts can be to support and protect the positions of power of the self-anointed "Lords of the Universe," or it can be to bring learning, and therefore power, to all people who would like to make a better life for themselves.
1022:
No kidding. But I'll present you now with the following two sets of characters, one in Traditional and one in Simplified, and, if you can find even an ounce of difference between the actual meanings of the two, then kindly point it out and I'll digress:
834:
05:56, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) I tried pasting big5 into a piece of software like Jeeves that automatically creates the &# junk, but it isn't showing up correctly. I also tried Unicode, but that didn't work either. What is one supposed to start with, GB???
921:
Disrespectful? Hardly. I could very easily make the same argument as you have and back it up with trivial figures and whatnot, but what purpose would it ultimately serve? As for the Tradtional/Simplified agurment that you have proposed, there are
1584:
spelling, providing the old transliteration is a must. We already list most mainland geographical place names/historical subjects/etc. under the pinyin title. I take it that you don't want the WG transliteration in the main body of the article.
910:
Your recent change in Chinese Proverbs is uncalled for. Changing Traditional Chinese into Simplified Chinese is disrespectful to those who only know Traditional Chinese. Adding S. Chinese to T. Chinese is okay. Replacing the text is rude.
1624:
that sounds like a reference to an olfactory tour of an ill kept zoo. I already have a pronunciation guide, which I could easily provide. I don't, however, have access to a person with an exemplary pronunciation and a good radio voice.
1224:
responded to my query as to whether or not any information was lost in the given example when trasitioned between the two character sets. Here's some advice: take a position and stick to it, and stop hiding behind your cowardly mask of
763:
On the other hand, the yuan4 written in simplified yuan4 yi4 (willing to) is still in use as a traditional character. The traditional character written with yuan2 (origin) over xin1 (heart) means "honest", "sincere", not "willing to."
771:
The real problem for ensuring meaningful communications comes when there are many-to-one mappings when going from traditional to simplified and then a messy one-to-many mapping when going back from simplified to traditional.
1619:
I agree. A reference to Long2 Jing3 in simplified charcters may completely throw a reader from Taiwan (or anybody else who is accustomed only to traditional characters) even though the information would be relevant to them.
767:
I don't think there is anything wrong with simplifying characters. Almost everybody does it. Who writes the old ("correct") form of cai2 meaning "only then" instead of substituting the cai2 that means "talent" any more?
434:
Chinese names for ancient Chinese should better be written in traditional characters. Personally I think it is more respectful, especially traditional characters are still in use. I would not ask the names of person in
1418:
We're not just catering to Taiwanese for Taiwan-related articles. Actually, I think it should just be the opposite. The information contained within these articles would probably be more useful for non-Taiwanese.
1573:
there. For instance, Nixon and company came back with "Bay ZHHHHHing" instead of "Bay jing", and everybody started using that totally wrong pronunciation. People, esp. radio/tv announcers could use some help.
1172:
The argument about S.Chinese and T.Chinese carried the same meaning and hence it is okay to substitute one with the other is lame and ridiculous. I have seen many books published in China that are in romanized
1568:
I agree that we should standardize on the pinyin system used in mainland China. Since Nixon went to China it has become the emerging standard in the US. Most libraries changed over from Wade-Giles long ago.
535:(regardless of whether or not they're from the Mainland or Taiwan, etc.) will understand both sets of characters. I do, and I immigrated to the US after finishing the fourth grade (not a generalization). -
1564:
People from Taiwan used to look their names up in a dictionary prepared by the Ministry of Education. That dictionary used a tonal spelling. So people got some rather odd-looking names in roman letters.
759:
jing1 that I used is not a particularly good one, just the first one that came to mind. Like the zhe4 in zhe4 bian1, you probably will not find it used in its original meaning during recent centuries.
985:
updated system in lieu of an older -- albeit identical in usage and in meaning -- system does not have the equivalent of paraphrasing or watering down the ultimate point which it is trying to convey. -
89:
1589:
geographical names when the Chinese national postal system was being adapted to the fact that more and more letters were coming to Chinese people and business concerns from Europe and America.
241:
if possible, and than list the various different romanji within it as notes complete with which tongue the romanjis are based on. There is also, the use of redirection. Such as searching for
755:
give the "elephant" form, not the other one in "hao3 xiang4." Is the old version of this character creeping back in? Or have lexicographers been writing the "wrong" one in their dictionaries?
555:
The purpose of the encyclopedia is to make information readily available, and that means that it is best to avoid creating barriers when the costs are only a couple minutes extra effort.
850:
No. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Just tried direct keyboard entry. That too does not work. I had been using Mozilla and/or Netscape on Mac system 9.2, and now I'm using Safari on Mac System X.
318:
165:
I don't suggest this method used on all China-related articles, as they look fine now. So no need to change. But as Jiang pointed out, Korean Wikilink-pattern may look deceiving, since
1248:, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Does writing apply solely to the written word and not characters? -
577:
and use both character sets. Could you please add back the traditional? Even if traditional readers can somehow decipher simplified, some may find the communist font repulsive. --
81:
76:
71:
59:
721:. A more ordinary example would be writing "good elephant" for "seems to be" not realizing that the first xiang4 is not the same as the second one in traditional Chinese.
1086:
Chinese are able to real BOTH character sets, it is not necessary to convert one character set to the other or we will face needless argument-like what we have here!
734:
Actually, is this character province or ROC-specific? Both the ROC and several nonautonomous regions of the PRC use variant characters not normally found in Mandarin.
1460:
on Taiwan itself controversial. Despite a central government directive favoring tongyong, local municipalities can and do override it. Several municipalities use
993:
Hey, I have an idea. I'll present you with several archaic markings from the Jiaguwen period and you tell me whether or not the usage of Traditional today is the
958:
with S. Chinese is a disrespect to the Chinese Language. I totally agree with the Wiki guideline. Use both because either one can please two group of audience.
884:
and a traditional version. Having both costs virtually nothing. Not having both means that a significant number of people will be hindered or even misled.
1199:? Furthermore, I would to make it clear for the record of what you stated (quite angrily and determined, I might add) a couple of messages prior this one:
946:
857:
Use NJStar or RichWin for the PC. NJStar, in particular, will provide you with many of the more popular input methods (Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Cangjie, etc.) -
47:
17:
824:(Are there instructions somewhere on how to convert big5 to the &xxxx format? I tried to just upload the Chinese text, but nothing I've tried works.)
804:
Here are some more cases where currently valid traditional characters are used as simplified characters standing for entirely different words/meanings:
1265:
Simplified, and most institutions of higher learning here in the US teach the Simplified set. Why do you think I edited only the Mandarin subsection? -
1404:
The official full name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all.
103:, got this long -- but necessarily so -- native characters and Romanizations string. What I've done is to adopt the Korean method and make it like:
696:
character that is used in simplified Chinese for "chi1 jing1 de jing1". It combines the "standing heart radical" with "jing1" as in "Bei3 Jing1".
1236:
In my opinions, overwriting one character set with another is a bad idea, it could be a disrepect to the first writer. That's all I want to say. -
1473:
Taiwan has been trying to move to pinyin for over a decade and a half, and they aren't getting anywhere because no one agrees what pinyin to use.
1284:
Then how about the Taiwanese, Hongkongers and many old oversea Chinese? Well, that means we have to made two character sets side by side then.
405:
After a Chinese term is inserted in the article, latecomers could not rewrite the term using different character set. Except personal names.
184:
1338:
We should use popular systems regardless of the subject's political affiliation. It's helpful to include the pinyin. WG is also included in
1007:
Modern English and Shakespearean English conveys the same meaning too, but the Cliff's Notes can never be a substitute for the real thing.
458:
The dichotomy of "Modern Mainland" / "traditional China, and Taiwan/HK/Macau" should extend from persons to non-persons, such as concepts (
1047:
and edge) or Jing (as in trait, quest). Each of these examples must be resolved in context for S. Chinese, while the T. Chinese are clear.
1367:, so using a romanized system that's familiar to Tanwanese will be more appropriate, so I asked which one is offically orcognized in
446:
could be in any character sets. Rule #1 should apply, unless the person himself or his closed relatives or friends ask for a change.
637:
Yes, both systems should be included. That also means that simplified should not take precedence even though more people use it. --
470:
1399:
1220:
And now you're bringing in Pinyin to salvage what little bits and pieces of an argument you may still have. As it stands, you
1426:). I don't think this is worth changing. As for which system the Taiwanese are familiar with, I think it is WG. That's why
785:
As a Chinese educated, I don't have any problem with any of the two versions. As far as wikipedian articles are concerned,
364:
standardized on Netscape 4.7 and I have to run it for certain things. Maybe other people have the same kind of problem.)
830:
03:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) Just tried the "Jeeves" method, but that doesn't give what is needed for this page, it seems.
1609:
too! And I agree with Jiang, a common use is more appropriate, since Knowledge is not a standardized organization. --
1306:
38:
179:
My suggestion is to simply make those two pages -- stub or not. That relieves Jiang's concerns (does it, Jiang?).
980:
Don't bring unrelated topics into this argument. You know as well as I do that the characters (be it Traditional
707:
Actually, I suppose liang2, that is, water (or ice in Simplified) radical + jing1 could be used for sorrow... -
1639:
1275:
Not only mandarin speakers will be interested in the mandarin proverbs. That assumption should not be made. --
1136:
Putting names in two character sets side by side is better. But for long phrases, it is too cumbersome to me.
505:
305:
1430:
was used atop the ROC table instead of Tongyong. Our convention is to "use common names". Some names like
469:
Addition to # 5, those oversea Chinese who left China before the character simplification, as most on the
391:
1178:
1008:
959:
914:
309:). They are both pseudo-lists, why not just bullets (*) for all, make them easy-to-type real lists? --
1127:
and not some sort of a clandestine initiative to establish a "super race" among Chinese characters! -
1067:
395:
1145:
Tell that to the guy above, whose responses are becoming more and more overloaded with hypocrisy. -
166:
142:
111:
947:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Use of traditional characters or simplified characters
1627:
1606:
1576:
887:
831:
827:
775:
724:
697:
677:
558:
382:
367:
337:
170:
146:
115:
1610:
1443:
1407:
1384:
1331:
1294:
904:
1422:
The convention is to list the transliteration if the name is not in the roman alphabet (see
926:
people in this world who would have it vice versa. Not to mention that I only converted the
840:
443:
1502:
1457:
258:
250:
242:
1256:
object. I will not start an edit war because of that but I surely feel bad about it. --
820:?? zhu4: space between the throne and the "green room" behind it becomes ning2: peaceful
519:
Wait...do you mean the other way around? Didnt you changed simplified to traditional? --
428:
281:
238:
343:
That's weird. There is no WP on OS X which can copy and paste Unicode as plain text?
1647:
1643:
1464:. Part of the problem is that on Taiwan itself, the whole issue is very politicized.
1343:
487:
220:
1524:) should use hanyu pinyin in the title, with no need for any other transliterations.
1461:
1266:
1249:
1226:
1201:
But overwritting T. Chinese with S. Chinese is a disrespect to the Chinese Language
1146:
1128:
1118:
It would appear that you are the one propagating character supremacy here; is that
1098:
1071:
998:
986:
971:
939:
895:
873:
858:
844:
737:
708:
686:
660:
620:
587:
567:
536:
510:
436:
200:
1552:
1245:
477:
322:
310:
301:
285:
192:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
401:
I would like to suggest a few rules in using the two competing character sets:
199:
traditional and the other side is in simplified; one set or romanization is in
187:
from months ago -- Actually just two posts, that's it! (Very quiet, like here.)
1651:
1595:
1435:
1347:
1285:
1276:
1257:
1237:
1137:
1104:
1091:
950:
638:
604:
578:
520:
496:
451:
344:
270:
211:
204:
154:
123:
257:
Our policy is to use the most common name. Yes, Fenghuang should be moved to
1642:
for proposed naming convention. (That is, Hakka (linguistics) as opposed to
1517:
1364:
1339:
853:
I may have to use the IBM... But there I don't have an input method set up.
424:
417:
246:
100:
1357:
No, no. Nothing to do about politics at all. I am just thinking that maybe
808:Àëëx?0„2 li2: Bright, elegant; to oppose. becomes li2: to separate from
748:-- which was written a long time before there was ever a ROC/PRC split.
1423:
1406:" I don't know if that also means the romanized system listed below? --
1203:-- How can you justify further your disclaim of having said something
1431:
1376:
1372:
1359:
1318:
1174:
872:
possibly confuse the last character for its homophonic alternative. -
409:
158:
150:
127:
119:
1207:?. Do you understand that disrespect is synonymous with insultation?
659:
Agreed. Glad to have come to a mutual understanding on this topic. -
1521:
619:
takes precendence when being read by a mixed audience is absurd. -
463:
413:
930:
portion of the proverbs to Simplified being that the majority of
308:
for examples. Some uses indent (:), other uses break (<br: -->
1368:
1313:
811:?? chong1 tender, delicate becomes zhong3: sort, kind, variety
459:
266:
262:
90:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/monarchical titles
25:
1090:(Oh, Toaster, this paragraph is by me, not the guy above :P -
1326:
on the pages related to ROC appropriate? So far as I know,
814:?? yao1: small, tender becomes me0: ending for she2me, etc.
744:
The word as I have explained it above is also given in the
1538:
article, but I recognize that this is basically arbitrary.
938:). Please don't bring petty nationalism into Knowledge. -
319:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Name list example
934:
speakers would probably understand Simplified (hence
1516:
known by their hanyu pinyin forms in the west (c.f.
789:have to be entered at all times, especially if the
495:
I think we ought to provide both, if applicable. --
817:?? pi1 or pei1: unfired bricks becomes huai4: bad.
867:离惊愿种么坏宁 different things in traditional Chinese.
603:. There's no use escaping the truth of things. --
1205:when it is clearly right before your very eyes
473:did, should be written in Traditional Chinese.
439:to be written in characters of Han, of course.
8:
1383:, a little bit confused for some people.) --
420:should be written in traditional characters.
945:Hi Toaster, I have proposed a guideline in
18:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
1244:As I have been reminded time and again by
431:should be written in simplifed characters.
300:Some Chinese had many many names. See Dr.
233:--GSYH (BerryCharms@hotmail.com)July 2003
1322:to show the pronunciation, but is using
599:is irrelevant here. We should look at
423:Chinese names for people and place in
408:Chinese names for people and place in
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
185:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Korean)
7:
997:affront to "real" Chinese writing. -
229:Literal translation vs. Romanization
269:have already been taken care of. --
249:. Frankly I liked it better under
1456:Also keep in mind that the use of
864:離驚願種麼壞寧 All these characters mean
751:Mainland dictionaries such as the
24:
1434:are neither in pinyin nor WG. --
471:List of famous Chinese Americans
29:
1400:Knowledge:WikiProject_Countries
1346:and other mainland subjects. --
1066:I've already explained this in
95:Native terms and Romanizations
1:
758:The example of liang2 --: -->
296:Within article: list of names
1330:is not recognized in ROC. --
134:As opposed to the old way:
1668:
1634:dialect naming conventions
1307:Talk:Central Bank of China
1654:08:54, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1630:21:54, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1613:08:55, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)~~
1555:01:13, Oct. 26 2003 (UTC)
1300:Pinyin on Taiwan articles
1103:Oh sorry! Too hungry! :P
1094:17:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC))
890:13:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
719:Zhong1 Wen2 Da4 Ci2 Dian3
1640:Talk:Hakka (linguistics)
1579:06:48, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1438:05:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1334:10:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1312:On the pages related to
1288:04:55, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1260:01:00, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1240:23:33, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
953:00:12, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
917:23:52, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
793:is lost in the mappings.
778:02:46, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
727:16:01, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
700:15:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
680:06:12, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
581:04:50, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
561:02:26, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
506:List of Chinese proverbs
480:01:14, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
454:23:33, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
385:17:40, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
370:05:54, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
347:03:12, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
340:02:02, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
325:00:25, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
313:21:14 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
203:and the other set is in
1598:06:57, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1594:name never shows up. --
1446:05:57, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1410:05:36, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1387:05:27, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1350:21:12, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
1181:22:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1107:19:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1011:01:46, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
962:01:26, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
753:Xiandai Han Ying Cidian
607:17:28, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
523:01:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
504:This is related to the
499:04:16, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
490:04:37, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
288:23:02 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
273:22:49 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
214:00:58 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
195:00:10 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
717:the Chiense Language,
392:traditional characters
223:07:09 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1068:Simplified characters
573:We should accomodate
396:simplified characters
183:More (not much now!)
42:of past discussions.
157:: Lien?chiang? is a
1363:is not familiar to
167:Traditional Chinese
1607:simplified Chinese
924:substantially more
442:Chinese names for
176:are non-existent.
171:Simplified Chinese
905:User talk:Taoster
245:will lead you to
237:translation like
99:Some pages, like
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1659:
1398:And in the page
1123:portion was for
791:original meaning
444:overseas Chinese
331:Chinese encoding
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1636:
1605:Singapore uses
1458:tongyong pinyin
1302:
908:
805:
797:I quite agree.
746:Kang Xi Zi Dian
462:) and objects (
399:
353:
333:
317:See examples @
298:
259:Chinese Phoenix
251:Chinese Phoenix
243:Chinese Phoenix
231:
97:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1665:
1663:
1635:
1632:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1600:
1599:
1586:
1585:
1563:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1450:
1448:
1447:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1371:(for example,
1352:
1351:
1301:
1298:
1290:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1270:
1269:
1253:
1252:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1222:still have not
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1097:Toaster?! :P -
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:想要掩蓋事實，反而更加暴露。
1027:
1026:想要掩盖事实，反而更加暴露。
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1002:
1001:
990:
989:
977:
976:
975:
974:
964:
963:
943:
942:
907:
901:
900:
899:
898:
894:...而是否隱藏的陰謀。 -
877:
876:
862:
861:
848:
847:
839:Are you using
822:
821:
818:
815:
812:
809:
803:
795:
794:
781:
742:
741:
740:
715:
713:
712:
692:No. It is the
690:
689:
674:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
611:
610:
609:
608:
597:What should be
591:
590:
571:
570:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
527:
526:
525:
524:
514:
513:
501:
500:
492:
491:
482:
481:
474:
467:
448:
447:
440:
432:
429:mainland China
421:
406:
398:
388:
387:
372:
352:
351:Morphing Hanzi
349:
332:
329:
328:
327:
326:
297:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
282:Talk:Fenghuang
275:
274:
239:Hopping corpse
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
163:
162:
132:
131:
96:
93:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1664:
1655:
1653:
1649:
1648:Hakka Chinese
1645:
1644:Hakka dialect
1641:
1633:
1631:
1629:
1628:Patrick0Moran
1625:
1621:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1578:
1577:Patrick0Moran
1574:
1570:
1566:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1523:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:Deng Xiaoping
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1299:
1297:
1296:
1289:
1287:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1259:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1239:
1228:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1130:
1126:
1125:clarification
1121:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
988:
983:
979:
978:
973:
968:
967:
966:
965:
961:
956:
955:
954:
952:
948:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
920:
919:
918:
916:
912:
906:
902:
897:
893:
892:
891:
889:
888:Patrick0Moran
885:
881:
875:
870:
869:
868:
865:
860:
856:
855:
854:
851:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
833:
832:Patrick0Moran
829:
828:Patrick0Moran
825:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
806:
802:
798:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
779:
777:
776:Patrick0Moran
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
754:
749:
747:
739:
735:
730:
729:
728:
726:
725:Patrick0Moran
722:
720:
711:
710:
703:
702:
701:
699:
698:Patrick0Moran
695:
688:
683:
682:
681:
679:
678:Patrick0Moran
662:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
640:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
622:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
606:
602:
598:
595:
594:
593:
592:
589:
584:
583:
582:
580:
576:
569:
564:
563:
562:
560:
559:Patrick0Moran
556:
553:
549:
538:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
522:
518:
517:
516:
515:
512:
507:
503:
502:
498:
494:
493:
489:
484:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
453:
445:
441:
438:
433:
430:
426:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
386:
384:
383:Patrick0Moran
380:
376:
371:
369:
368:Patrick0Moran
365:
361:
357:
350:
348:
346:
341:
339:
338:Patrick0Moran
330:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
312:
307:
303:
295:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
234:
228:
222:
217:
216:
215:
213:
208:
206:
202:
196:
194:
189:
188:
186:
180:
177:
175:
172:
168:
160:
156:
153:: Liánjiāng;
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
136:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
106:
105:
104:
102:
94:
92:
91:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1637:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1611:ILovEJPPitoC
1587:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1462:Hanyu pinyin
1449:
1444:ILovEJPPitoC
1427:
1421:
1417:
1408:ILovEJPPitoC
1403:
1385:ILovEJPPitoC
1380:
1358:
1332:ILovEJPPitoC
1327:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1304:
1303:
1295:Pizza Puzzle
1291:
1283:
1254:
1235:
1221:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1135:
1124:
1119:
1084:
994:
981:
944:
935:
931:
927:
923:
913:
909:
886:
882:
878:
866:
863:
852:
849:
826:
823:
799:
796:
790:
786:
780:
774:
770:
766:
762:
757:
752:
750:
745:
743:
733:
723:
718:
714:
706:
693:
691:
673:
600:
596:
574:
572:
557:
554:
550:
546:
449:
437:state of Han
400:
381:
377:
373:
366:
362:
358:
354:
342:
334:
299:
235:
232:
209:
201:Hanyu Pinyin
197:
190:
182:
181:
178:
173:
164:
138:
133:
124:Lien?chiang¹
107:
98:
88:
65:
43:
37:
1402:, it says "
1305:Moved from
1225:anonymity.-
1179:67.117.82.5
1009:67.117.82.5
960:67.117.82.5
915:67.117.82.5
466:), as well.
143:Traditional
36:This is an
1503:Roadrunner
787:both forms
205:Wade-Giles
155:Wade-Giles
147:Simplified
1518:Hu Jintao
1365:Taiwanese
1340:Hu Jintao
1316:, we use
1197:right now
425:Singapore
418:Hong Kong
247:Fenghuang
139:Lianjiang
120:Liánjiāng
108:Lianjiang
101:Lianjiang
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
995:ultimate
936:Mainland
932:Mandarin
928:Mandarin
575:everyone
304:and old
174:articles
1483:pinyin.
1442:I c! --
1424:Algeria
1267:Taoster
1250:Taoster
1227:Taoster
1147:Taoster
1129:Taoster
1099:Taoster
1072:Taoster
999:Taoster
987:Taoster
972:Taoster
940:Taoster
896:Taoster
874:Taoster
859:Taoster
845:Taoster
738:Taoster
709:Taoster
687:Taoster
661:Taoster
621:Taoster
601:what is
588:Taoster
568:Taoster
537:Taoster
511:Taoster
390:Use of
126:) is a
39:archive
1553:Xiaopo
1432:Quemoy
1381:pinyin
1377:Taibei
1373:Taipei
1360:pinyin
1328:pinyin
1324:pinyin
1319:pinyin
1246:Menchi
1175:pinyin
841:NJStar
486:time.
478:Menchi
410:Taiwan
323:Menchi
311:Menchi
306:Kangxi
286:Menchi
193:Menchi
159:county
151:Pinyin
149:: 连江;
145:: 連江;
128:county
1652:Jiang
1596:Jiang
1522:Hanzi
1493:them.
1436:Jiang
1348:Jiang
1286:wshun
1277:Jiang
1258:wshun
1238:wshun
1138:Wshun
1105:wshun
1092:wshun
951:wshun
903:from
639:Jiang
605:Jiang
579:Jiang
521:Jiang
497:Jiang
464:sheng
452:wshun
414:Macau
345:wshun
271:Jiang
212:Jiang
16:<
1650:. --
1638:See
1428:that
694:same
416:and
321:. --
284:. --
280:See
265:and
169:and
1646:or
1379:in
1375:is
1369:ROC
1314:PRC
1120:not
949:. -
843:? -
488:kt2
460:Tao
450:--
427:or
394:or
302:Sun
267:Shi
263:Jiu
221:kt2
161:...
130:...
1551:--
1520:,
1342:,
982:or
476:--
412:,
210:--
191:--
122:;
118:;
116:连江
114:;
112:連江
970:-
736:-
685:-
586:-
566:-
141:(
110:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.