This page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.
Isn't the Yale romanization of Japanese actually JSL? WhisperToMe 05:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That would contradict the information at JSL, where it says that it was created in 1987. According to this article, the Yale romanizations were created during World War II. Cohen the Bavarian 00:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to indicate Chinese tones? Numbers?--Jusjih 03:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wade-Giles uses superscripted numbers. Yale uses tone marks over vowels, as does pin-yin. P0M 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The section on Mandarin consists largely of subjective musings concerning the mertis of the each system. It really needs to be more objectively worded and be converted to a more terse and encyclopedic style of prose.
I'm sorely disappointed that there is still no information on this subject here... - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Furrykef. Funnily enough, the Japanese Wikipedia contains a translation of this page. anton (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Japanese Wikipedia article, the only mention of the Japanese language itself is in the first sentence, just like the English Wikipedia. In that version, too, details are given on the Yale Romanization of Mandarin, Cantonese and Korean, but not Japanese. evin290 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
But the article says in the lead that the Yale romanizations (for languages other than Mandarin) were created in the 1960s and 1970s. JSL was created in 1987. So either Yale romanization of Japanese is not JSL, or the article is wrong. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In the article is it stated that the diacritic marks (tone markings) used in the Yale system were later adopted for Hanyu Pinyin, but the the phonetic alphabet known as Zhuyin Fuhao was developed almost thirty years before the Yale system in 1913 and was the first to use that style of marking to indicate tone. Is there anything I'm missing or that I don't have totally correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
The Japanese machine gun story is cute, but 1) isn't encyclopedic, 2) isn't particularly helpful without the actual Romanization (or original Chinese), and 3) is original research unless you can quote it from somewhere. It's also confusing as all hell the way that it's currently written, and whoever stuck it back up didn't bother to rewrite it. A comparison of the two might be handy, but a table would probably be easier to understand.
etc etc? Also, I wonder how the sortable tables sort Chinese characters... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The different Yale romanization systems are used in different circumstances, for different languages. I don't see the advantage of lumping them all together into one page. I'd prefer a separate page for Yale of Mandarin, Yale of Cantonese, Yale of Korean, etc, with this page acting as disambiguation. JohnDavidWard (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Upon rereading this comment, I think my tone sounded a little argumentative, which wasn't my intention. I really like this article and how it's come together. I'm just thinking that the Korean section in particular could benefit from being split off. But maybe it'll work just to make a separate Korean Yale article and link it here under the Korean Yale heading? JohnDavidWard (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Now split into 3 pages as suggested above. Kanguole 11:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)