Template talk:Chinese characters sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Propose template redesign[edit]

I'd like to propose a template redesign, to make it more visually appealing, like those on other language Wikipedias, such as zh:Template:漢字 and ja:Template:漢字. Currently it looks rather plain. If no one opposes, I may start off. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Go ahead. If you don't, I will. Asoer (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Chinese characters logo.jpg
Chinese characters
Scripts
Precursors · Oracle bone script
Bronze script · Seal script
Clerical script · Regular script
Semi-cursive script · Cursive script
Type styles
Imitation Song · Ming · Sans-serif
Properties
Strokes · Stroke order · Radicals
Classification · Section headers
Variants
Standards
Kangxi Dictionary (Kyūjitai)
Tōyō kanji · Jōyō kanji
Standard Form of National Characters
List of Forms of Frequently Used Characters
Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo
Reform
Japanese script reform
Simplified Chinese characters
Traditional Chinese characters
Simplified/traditional debate
Sinoxenic usage
Kanji · Hanja · Chữ Nôm
Derivatives
Kokuji · Korean hanja · (invented) Chữ Nôm
Kana (Man'yōgana) · Idu · Sawndip · Nü Shu
Zetian characters · Khitan · Jurchen · Tangut

OK. I made this based on zh:Template:漢字 and the current template. I made it wider than the Chinese and Japanese ones because of the more space needed for English words and that I think modern monitors could use the space better. I'm still messing with the name lengths and links. Some background colors are also lighter to increase legibility. The image at the top is just an example of a short and wide image whose dimensions I think would look good. I'll probably get a more suitable image in there in a bit. --Asoer (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added an image. Asoer (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New template design applied.[edit]

The template design described above was applied.Asoer (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Brilliant job. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

9 October 2010[edit]

I personally am not so sure about adding the {{·}} bullets between each entry; now it looks kind of strange, especially when bullets appear at the end of a line and aren't separating anything. I'd prefer the previous edition as it would be slightly more tidy and aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. Additionally, I have reverted a good faith edit that removed Bopomofo - as with Japanese Kana, Bopomofo is derived from Chinese characters themselves. I have moved it to the relevant section though. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous bulleting format looks weird if the browser increases text size. The current format looks weird anyway. The inclusion of Bopomofo is good though. 174.23.179.209 (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the format back while leaving the new information in.-Asoer (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF again.[edit]

There are some red links and lots of abbreviations in the table now. They seem to be unnecessary. The table is a directory to existing articles. Therefore, it's better to make the articles first, and then link to them in the table. However, I'm pretty certain than many of the red links in the table will not make good articles that can't be merged with existing ones. For example "Chinese script reform" can be merged with "Simplified Chinese characters." "Jiù Zìxíng" and "Xīn Zìxíng" refer to non-現代漢語常用字表 forms (not necessarily the Kangxi forms) and the 現代漢語常用字表 forms respectively. Some I have never heard about, such as "future Xīn Zìxíng." You really need to elaborate on that. Also, why move the Joyo Kanji and other standards into the reform section, while keeping 現代漢語常用字表 in the standard section? Asoer (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Xin Zixing refers to the current Zixing affect both traditional Chinese character and simplified Chinese character. See the corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia for moe information. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Xin-jiu-zixing.png––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Correspondingly, Jiu Zixing may also affect both traditional Chinese character and simplified Chinese character. I'va saw a book written in Jiu Zixing with simplified Chinese character. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I know what 新字形 and 舊字形 are. 好像你的英語不行呢。我是說你應該先寫條目,然後把連接放在表格裏。而且現在的表格裏面所有的紅色連接不會成為有用的條目,比如 "Jiù Zìxíng" 和 "Xīn Zìxíng" 的資料可以放在 Variant Chinese character 或者 Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo 裏面. "1st" 和 "Chinese script reform" 在 Simplified Chinese characters 裏面已經寫了很多。"future" 雖然我沒聽過,但是如果有的話應該也可以放在 Simplified Chinese characters 裏面。總而言之,那些紅色連接沒有必要。若要,先寫條目,或在現有的條目裏寫,然後加連接。還有 Tōyō kanjiJōyō kanjiXiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo 也是一類的東西,為何把它放在 "Reform"下面?Asoer (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
不好意思,沒抓住“點”,英語不太好,呵呵。
  • 我的認識正好相反:應當先把連接放到表格裏,然後才有人看到紅鏈進而想到需要寫條目;
  • Tōyō kanjiJōyō kanji的問題,很抱歉,是我的理解不全面的問題,我這就給它改過來。
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 06:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
我還是覺得很不齊整。首先說這裏是英語維基百科。為何有那麼多漢語拼音?但是這些不太重要,有會英語的人改一下就好了。"“Glyph” - Different standard forms" 和 "Standards on using of Chinese characters" 不是一樣的東西嗎?而且兩部的內容也是一類: Standard Form of National Characters, List of Forms of Frequently Used Characters, Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo, Tōyō kanji, Jōyō kanji 都是某地區的標準漢字。
你把紅色連接放在表格裏,是不是因為你認為這些東西可以成為關注度的條目,而且其他地方沒有寫?請看一下:
有的東西我沒見過,比如 "Xīn Zìxíng" 的 "1st" 和 "future" 以及 "non-allographic (正確英語應該是"graphemic"但現在不講) Yìtǐzì" 的 "1st" 和 "Taiwan"。任何人都可以作出來一個假東西的名稱。我怎麼知道這些東西不是你作出來的?可能我無知,所以我將找別人看一看。但是我建議你先寫條目,或者在別的條目裏面寫資料,然後把鏈接放在表格裏。
--Asoer (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
回應:
  1. 閣下可以看看中文維基中的相應詞條:zh:印刷通用汉字字形表, zh:现代汉语常用字表, zh:现代汉语通用字表, zh:通用规范汉字表漢字標準;以及zh:第一批异体字整理表, zh:异体字表
  2. 如果說裏面拼音太多會導致“不齊整”的話,那麽Tōyō kanji, Jōyō kanji等Hepburn romanization早就把格式弄亂了
  3. Standards on using of Chinese characters與“Glyph”不同:Standards on using of Chinese characters規定的是什麽字能用,什麽字不能用;“Glyph”規定的是那些能用的字怎麽寫
  4. Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo#Characteristics 是 "1988版Xīn Zìxíng" 的一部分,"1988版Xīn Zìxíng"的全部是zh:现代汉语通用字表的附表
  5. "Guīfàn hànzì"是一個關於Orthodox and vulgar variants的標準:它正好把那些Variant Chinese character#Orthodox and vulgar variants中的vulgar規定成了Orthodox,而把那些過去的Orthodox規定成了Yìtǐzì。
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 08:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
忙了一個半月,對不起。
  1. 看了,然後呢?大部份的條目沒有英語翻譯,只有zh:現代漢語常用字表有翻譯,而是我寫的。
  2. "Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo," "Tōyō kanji," "Jōyō kanji" 已經是英語裏面最常用的名稱。其他的人們都不認識。若暫時要找個名稱,應該以英語為主。
  3. 你是不是說某個"Standard"裏面"戶/户/戸"字能用,而某個"Glyph"裏面把它寫成"戶"?可以在表格裏寫得比較清楚。
  4. 不見。好像你沒看懂 "Characteristics" 部份。
  5. 你一定沒看懂 "Orthodox and vulgar variants" 部份。它們不是標準,也不是任何組織或者標準可以規定的東西。"Orthodox"是據漢字演變所料的字形。當然我們不能完全料定,但是大部份的字有一定的正(orthodox)寫。不是"orthodox"則是"vulgar"。
我決定改回 19:14, 20 December 2010 的版本,而加上“標準字”與“標準字形”之區別。理由是
  • 這個表格不應該有紅色連接。
  • 虞海的英語不行。
  • “標準字”與“標準字形”不同。

Asoer (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment:
  • Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo的常用程度與Xiàndài Hànyǔ Tōngyòng Zìbiǎo、Tōngyòng Guīfàn Hànzìbiǎo無異,而Tōngyòng Guīfàn Hànzìbiǎo只因處於草案階段,目前常用程度;
  • 你沒明白我的意思 "Orthodox and vulgar variants" 部份說得確實不是標準,但一切的字形標準,包括Standard Form of National Characters、List of Forms of Frequently Used Characters以及Xin Zixing都是針對"Orthodox and vulgar variants"做的定義,它們有的更傾向于使用Orthodox variants,有的更傾向于使用vulgar variants.
  • 重新讀了一下 "Characteristics" 部份,這囘一句也沒落下。該部分出的問題是:它把Xin Zixing和Simplified Chinese characters混淆了起來。我把它改了一下。
  • 我的英語行不行這無法成爲一個理由,因爲我並不擁有這個條目。
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 07:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
還是不區分比較好。大部份的條目在"Standards"下面包括標準字和標準字形。只有Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo可能不包括。但是這是次要的

Asoer (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. As it clearly says at WP:NAV, "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles". Please though always use English on talk pages, otherwise other editors cannot understand what is written, and views written in other languages are likely to be overlooked.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: I'm sorry that when I discussed with Asoer we discussed in Chinese. We may restart the discussion in English here.
WP:NAV reads “Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles”. Those red links I added are very likely to be developed into articles:
  1. Xin Zixing is an article in Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia;
  2. Tōngyòng Guīfàn Hànzìbiǎo will become the next standard after the Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo.
So it's a matter of time. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
虞海, That only accounts for two of the eight red links that you put in the table. What about the other six? As I was saying above (in Chinese) anyone can make up a name of something that may or may not be notable (article-worthy). It's only safe to only link to existing articles. It matters whether or not your English is proficient because we (users of English Wikipedia) have to be able to understand your edits and discuss them competently with you. I'm not the first to feel that your English is not proficient enough for this; see User_talk:虞海#Edit_warring and User_talk:虞海#English_inadequate, just for a few comments from other users. Asoer (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I did never deny the inadequateness of my English, so there's no need to show how my English being inadequate (such as what other thinks, etc.). Yet the views you set out fail to prove contents add by users whose English is not proficient enough must be deleted, for those whose English being proficient enough may easily correct them to a clear and coherent look. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Red links should only exist for any length of time in articles, not in nav boxes, for two reasons. First a red link in an article provides context in a related topic, so shows what the red link means and how it relates to an existing article or articles (as many red links appear in more than one). Second red links in an article take no space, although they do distract from the article so should not be overused. Neither is true in a nav box. There is no context, just a list of links. There are headings but they are often fairly arbitrary, and should be kept to a minimum: "Unlinked text should be avoided". And they take up space, padding out the navigation box without providing useful navigation.
The names of many of these red links are unclear too. The first one, labelled '1st', goes to Yìnshuā Tōngyòng Hànzì Zìxíngbiǎo which does not conform to the Chinese naming conventions but would be better rendered in English. But this really is academic: make the articles first, so it's clear what they're on, what their title is, even if separate articles are justified. Then add them to the nav box.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You always read half of a sentence:
  • Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles
  • Unlinked text should be avoided, but this (=some) content seems more appropriate in an article
In each rule the content items I added fit the exceptional condition. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 14:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate English would be a problem if you tend to misinterpret articles and other users' messages, such as this misinterpretation: You referenced "Unlinked text should be avoided. For example, {{Axis of Justice}} lists non-articles under "Notable guests", but this content seems more appropriate in an article." This means that the red links that existed in the navigation template {{Axis of Justice}} should not be in the template and would be better in an article.
I see some red links were linked to articles. That is good. However, why are there things that link to the same article? "Xīn Zìxíng" and "1st" both link to Xīn Zìxíng. "current" and "Hànyǔ Tōngyòng zì" both link to Xiàndài Hànyǔ Tōngyòng Zìbiǎo.

Asoer (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Template formatting[edit]

I was WP:BOLD and standardized the template so that it uses {{Infobox}}, overtaking all the default formatting options. The new design should be easier to maintain as well. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). The previous layout used a lot of manual coding, and its appearance was totally on odds with the common style of navigation boxes.

Additionally, I think that this template should be a Wikipedia:Navigation templates -- a collapsible box at the page bottom; the way it is now, it presents too much of visual distraction, which is not really necessary. The linked articles are relatively loosely coupled, and this template in infobox format is too prominent. See e.g. the "infobox hell" at Semi-cursive script. No such user (talk) 14:10,24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to put the images back in. Before, one could put images in the table by doing something like {{Table Hanzi|[[Image:筆-red.png|130px|Stroke order for character 筆 shown by shade going from black to red]]<br>[[Image:順-red.png|130px|Stroke order for each component (川 and 頁) of the character 順 shown by shade going from black to red]]}} as used in the article stroke order.

Asoer (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you need images in a navigation box at all? This template is not meant to be parametrized, and I don't see the need for that. No such user (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Simplified and Traditional in the image?[edit]

do we maybe need a new image for the template that has Simplified as well as Traditional characters. I suggest this because simplified is by far the more common today and wikipedia manual of style says "In order to accommodate all users, both simplified and traditional characters should be used in all cases where a difference exists." I think that in this context traditional should go first, but its kind of arbitrary. Some may think its fixing something that ain't broken, but some others may think its a peculiar exclusion of simplified characters. I am in the later group and I think it looks especially funny on the page Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. What do you guys think? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)