User talk:LiliCharlie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chữ nôm[edit]

(tagged all chữ nôm characters as language "vi-hani" so that enabled browsers (like mine) may use a Vietnamese font to render them (available fonts are: "Nom Na Tong" and "HAN NOM A" & "HAN NOM B")) (current)

Hi, interesting. Would you have time to do a little explaining of this a bit on the Talk:Chữ nôm page ... sounds useful and and might be notable content in the article itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for explanation. Btw there has been an edit to your edit here. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The vi-nom template[edit]

It seems that vi-nom is identical to Nom Na Tong, and distinct from the default font:

羅吧固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛与今骨 (default)
羅吧固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛与今骨 vi-nom
羅吧固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛与今骨 Nom Na Tong

Compare the default font to HAN NOM A and HAN NOM B:

羅吧固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛与今骨 (default)
羅吧固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛与今骨 HAN NOM A
羅吧固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛与今骨 HAN NOM B

HAN NOM A has an extremely subtle variation on the third character. HAN NOM B has similar variation on the eighth character. But essentially these three fonts are identical. I suggest dropping both HAN NOM A and HAN NOM B from the vi-nom template. Do you think it would help to replace them with a font that covers CJK-C? Another issue is that the name vi-nom is quite confusing. It looks like a lang parameter, but it isn't. Could we change the name to "Nom" or "HanNom"? Kauffner (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course we could change its name, but only if there’s good reason to do so. I chose the name in accordance with the names of similar templates for Chinese that are typically called like {{zh-zhuyin}}, {{zh-trad}} or {{zh-viet}}. IMO template users should read a template’s documentation before they use it. And vi-nom is not a defined locale that could be used with {{lang}} anyway.
As to the HAN NOM fonts: I don’t like them either, and their style seems to be a mere copy of mainland Chinese Sòngtǐ 宋体 fonts. However I am reluctant to just drop the HAN NOM fonts. We might insert other font family names between Nom Na Tong and those instead, e.g. Sun-ExtB and MingLiu_HKSCS-ExtB. And Andrew’s BabelStone Han contains 456 of the 4149 Extension C characters as well. --LiliCharlie 20:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I have all those fonts installed, I can display the notorious 𫋙/càng character only with HanaMinB. In any case, the CJK-C characters are pretty obscure, likely to be used only in the context of "stuff recently added to Unicode". Take a look at Han unification. I used vi-nom to add Vietnamese characters to the charts. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have updated the list of fonts in the template {{vi-nom}}. Please keep me informed if this fixes your display problems. If not I might consider reverting to the old template. --LiliCharlie 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is that "Nom Na Tong" is at the head of the list in vi-nom, so if installed it is always used, even for CJK-C characters, which it does not cover. A possibility is to create a separate template for CJK-C and CJK-D characters that just lists fonts that support CJK-C and CJK-D, and use that for 𫋙 rather than vi-nom. BabelStone (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. So the new template would only list a few SIP fonts. And the day browser/OS support for CJK-C/D is sufficient it could be redefined as {{vi-nom|{{{1}}}}} and thus become synonymous with {{vi-nom}}. Would {{vi-nom-C-D|...} be an appropriate name for the new template, or is {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D|...} a better choice? --LiliCharlie 17:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The new template for Extensions C and D has been created. I have chosen to call it {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D}} and it has already been applied to the two occurrences of the character 𫋙 in the article Han-Nom. Please report if it works for you. --LiliCharlie 02:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for me (with HanaMinB installed on my computer). "HAN NOM B" (and HanNom-B?) only accidentally includes 106 CJK-C characters because it put a number of unencoded characters in the reserved code points at the end of the CJK-B block and these later became part of CJK-C with the result that HAN NOM B (and HanNom-B?) has completely the wrong glyphs for CJK-C characters U+2A700 through U+2A769. Therefore, HAN NOM B (and HanNom-B?) should be removed from the template list. BabelStone (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Glad it works for you. I remember having noticed that HAN NOM B’s encoding is faulty, but that was several years ago, and since I had alternative fonts and never liked and used it I later forgot. — HANNOM-B is the font’s PostScript name. I know that only font family names should be used in CSS, and not PS names, but it’s an old habit of mine to list them too, as this won’t do any harm but might improve someone’s display... --LiliCharlie 20:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Great job! It displays for me too. Perhaps you could shorten the name of the template. After all, this one isn't specific to Vietnam. It could be just CJK-C-D. Kauffner (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Finally! Gives me the feeling I’ve been helpful. — {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D}} is language specific: Notice that I plan to make it synonymous with {{vi-nom}} when it is no longer needed (see above), and if an expanded version of Nom Na Tong or an equivalent font is available, it will come on top of the template’s font list. All CJKV fonts are locale specific. The Japanese wouldn’t want their character for zen displayed as instead of (with ㇔㇒ instead of ㇔㇔㇒), nor do Hong Kongers like to see their window character as for (with ㇒㇒㇔ instead of ㇒㇇㇔). If you don’t see the difference use the government-official standard fonts 華康標準宋體=DFSongStd from HK and 全字庫正宋體=TW-Sung from TW; for Kǎitǐ 楷體 style I recommend 華康香港標準楷書=DFHKStdKai-B5 and 全字庫正楷體=TW-Kai. — BTW, it’s great that the article Han unification now has Nôm in the comparative table. As my window example showed the Chinese examples should be given by country, as in the Chinese WP, and other information is misleading as well. I hope I’ll find the time to write a versatile JavaScript called Script Display Tester later this month, and then will take care of Han unification. I think I have a good knowledge of local differences in CJKV typography. --LiliCharlie 20:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • For many of the examples on the chart, the differences quite trivial. We could remove some of them and focus on those where the differences are more significant. The biggest difference is between the mainland Chinese font and the Taiwanese font. Of course, that's Cold War politics rather than language. One or the other must have decided to create a distinct font so you can use typography to express political loyalty. If we could somehow add a font from the 1920s to the chart, we might have to reinterpret what it means to use "traditional" font. Kauffner (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, Singapore has copied mainland China’s typographical manners for decades, and printed matter from Hong Kong as well as from Malaysia more and more resembles what comes from Běijīng and Shànghǎi, too, so this matter is no longer a battle that’s keeps Cold War alive. — Until ten years ago Taiwanese officials persecuted anyone who dared to publish in simplified characters. That was orthographic Cold War! And that atmosphere certainly had a strong influence on the island’s font scene and Taiwanese art as a whole. Fortunately its rulers have come to reason, and even sanctioned Hànyǔ pīnyīn. Things have become much more relaxed and a little more mixed, and there are now web sites on the mainland like the Buddhist Homeland Shrouded in Mists ;-) that are entirely in traditional characters. To be sure, all this is not intended as a comment on the nature and quality of countries’ political systems, let alone their peoples.
Sometimes the difference between traditional and simplified characters is even more complicated. níng ‘limonene’ has the simplified form ; however zhù ‘a type of grass’ is a traditional character which has the simplified form . In this case wrong or no use of zh-hant and zh-hans not only causes an unwanted display, but may have strange effects on translation software, conversion software, etc. Try the conversion of in both directions with BabelStone’s BabelPad. This is a nice example of the effects of Unicode’s Han unification policy and of the necessity—not only for display—to use zh-hant vs. zh-hans markup for Chinese.
If you are seriously interested in the matter of font display we could try font embedding. For a start I could produce a WOFF font that contains just the two glyphs for 𫋙 and ⿰朝乙, so the font file the browser automatically downloads would be tiny. As you know I already have ⿰朝乙 in SVG format which is easy to convert. This technology has several advantages: it is now supported by all major browsers, so you can be way over 90% sure readers view the characters as intended, and it is a real vector font that doesn’t look as ugly as a magnified pixel image, and matches in size with the other characters. I’m not sure if Wikimedia support uploading web fonts though, but if you are interested I will check. --LiliCharlie 21:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to try, that's certainly fine with me. I was thinking the giàu character might look nicer if we photoshopped the background. But otherwise I'm satisfied with how it looks now. I put the article up for DYK, but it was rejected. It seems to me the writing is well above DYK standard. I'm sure it was IIO's carping that killed the nomination. Guy stalks me everywhere, a vindictive Frenchman with too much time on his hands. Kauffner (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It was rather rude to reject your DYK nomination without any explanation, but I think the reason would be that the article has to be nominated within 5 days of creation (DYK rules), and it was created on 9th March but only nominated on 19th March (sometimes a little leeway is allowed, but 10 days is too long). Wrt web fonts, I think that might be a good idea, but probably would need wider discussion amongst the community. If we could upload suitably licensed web fonts to Commons and use them to display characters not generally catered for out of the box that would be a great improvement for articles which use obscure scripts and characters. BabelStone (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nom language warning[edit]

Do you know that we already have {{Contains Vietnamese text}}? Kauffner (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Kauffner. I’m not sure if {{Contains Vietnamese text}} should be changed to tell the user to install Nôm fonts, and delete the not yet functional template {{Contains Nom text}} after it has been replaced by {{Contains Vietnamese text}} on all pages, or if it’s better to keep {{Contains Vietnamese text}} as a general browser support warning and write {{Contains Nom text}} as a font specific template. What do you think? Do we need separate templates for these two things? --LiliCharlie 19:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The Vietnamese alphabet displays for Windows 95 and later. It is only Han-Nom that is an issue. So there is no need for two templates. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Web Fonts[edit]

I've put your test web fonts on my website for testing at and as requested (the woff file is there but I can't get any of my browsers to admit that it is there). I'm afraid that I'm not too sure where you would engage the greater community in discussions on the use of web fonts as I tend not to get involved in discussions on policy, etc. Probably best to raise it at WP:TECHPUMP. BabelStone (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for hosting my fonts. As your website doesn’t seem to recognize files in WOFF format I have now hosted NomWebExtension.woff at where it is available for embedding in en.WP at​.
This is a first test with embedded fonts. The first and last characters and are only for reference; the two in the middle are our notorious ⿰虫強 at u+2B2D9 (CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C) and ⿰朝乙 at u+F8000 (Supplementary Private Use Area-A). The first line is an attempt at embedding the WOFF font from and in the second line I try to embed the corresponding TTF from

WP obviously doesn’t allow my style='@font-face {...}' definitions and overwrites them with style="/* insecure input */". This test has failed. --LiliCharlie 01:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, but perhaps not that surprising. It seems that you would have to get changes made to the MediaWiki software to support web fonts, which I can't imagine would be easy, especially if people have concerns about potential misuse of web fonts for nefarious purposes. BabelStone (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I don’t dare start a discussion on this topic. First, I am a lover of writing systems, typography and calligraphy rather than a programmer with a highly technical background. And what’s more English is neither my first nor my second language, so I fear that talks might break down because of insufficient linguistic and/or cultural competence on my part. It’s a pity, for so many Wikipedia articles could be drastically improved if only nearly universally supported modern font technology were also supported by MediaWiki and Wikimedia Commons. If you look at HTML/CSS code you will discover that a surprisingly high number of webpages “already” rely on font embedding (i.e. 15 years after its first employment), and as far as I’m aware it works without any security issues that are worth mentioning.

Font trivia[edit]

This document (in Vietnamese) says that the Nom Na Tong font is based on characters found in the 1933 edition of a book called Thiền Tông Bản Hạnh (The Origin of Buddhist Meditation) by Thanh Tu Thich. Kauffner (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist monasteries all over the Sinosphere are a great source for countless CJKV characters. The monks and nuns kept inventing 漢字 in an effort to render expressions they found in Buddhist texts written in a large number of foreign languages, or to convey the uniqueness and unspeakableness of their mystical experiences. I’m sure that many more characters from Buddhist texts will be added to Unicode over time, but diligent systematic studies are necessary before further proposals can be submitted to the IRG. --LiliCharlie 03:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Another Nom template[edit]

There is yet another language template for Vietnamese you might want to check out: {{vie}}. On another issue, I adjusted the {{vi-nom}} template and it now seems to work for CJK-C and CJK-D characters as well. Kauffner (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for pointing to {{vie}}. To my mind the template could be improved by adding HanaMinA so there is less mixing of different fonts. For example the (Japanese) character u+8217 of the documentation is displayed with PMingLiU although I have Nom Na Tong and all fonts of the HanaMin series installed. Also 城舗胡志明 (with the said Japanese character) for Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh of the template documentation looks strange to me. Shouldn’t that be written 城舖胡志明?
  • The {{vi-nom}} template had always worked on my system, and {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D}} was created because you had issues with {{vi-nom}} on yours. I have no means of testing if {{vi-nom}} now works on all platforms. If you are not 100% sure {{vi-nom}} works with Extensions C and D on all systems I still recommend using {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D}}. LiliCharlie 06:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like {{vie}} was copied from Japanese Wiki and 城舗胡志明 is "Ho Chi Minh City" in Japanese. This is a bad example since it is a modern name that was never written in Han or Nom -- unless you count Wiki zh-classical, which gives "胡志明市". I copied the font list from {{vi-nom}} to {{vie}}, so the two templates should have the same output now. The use of a separate Vietnam-oriented template for recently added Unicode characters is a kludge, so IMO {{vi-nom}} is the better solution. The {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D}} template can be renamed and presented as a solution for displaying the CJK-C and CJK-D characters in general, since this problem is not specific to Vietnamese.
On an unrelated issue: Check out the charts at Han unification. I make some changes recently. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I felt that {{vi-nom-CJK-C-D}} was a hack from the very start, and this was the reason I wrote that I wished it to be become synonymous with {{vi-nom}} some day. Yet it seems to have fixed your display problems at one time. (I remember BabelStone’s remark that in a character string an Extension B/C character was not displayed for you because the font on your system was already determined by the surrounding characters, or something to this effect. — Please keep in mind that an isolated character may look different from the very same character within a sequence of characters.)
I closely watched any changes to Han unification and I appreciate your edits very much. — Obvious, though not serious, errors are: the code points for u+9913 餓 and u+997F 饿 are reversed and u+7985 / has a traditional character equivalent that is not mentioned, u+79AA 襌. These shortcomings are not fundamental though. — I fail to understand the last sentence of the introduction to the examples: Why on earth is there mention of “non-graphical language tag characters ... for plain text language tagging” if using these tag characters is strongly discouraged?
I am in the process of creating SVG images for all the characters in the tables of Han unification and its equivalents in three or four other WP languages. Whenever available images for the six Unicode CJKV chart (or source) locales will be produced.
Generally speaking I think that the article Han unification (which is about how the Unicode Consortium decided to encode characters) might be improved by closely following the Unicode specifications. Illustrative sample glyphs should be given for the same locales as are given in the Unicode charts (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam), irrespective of language or the traditional vs. simplified character distinction. (N.B.: for the sample characters in the two tables of Han unification I can show you that the government official reference fonts of HK (DFSongStd = 華康標準宋體) and TW (TW-Sung = 全字庫正宋體) have clearly different glyphs [at first sight] for at least 10 characters, even though the fonts that ship with Mr Gates’s Windows are somewhat less divergent.) — To closely follow the Unicode standard also means to talk about semantic variants etc. Please be—or get—prepared to talk about how Unicode handles CJKV characters (which is not the same way as they are traditionally treated in East or West Eurasia).
As I am neither a native nor second language speaker of English I am reluctant to make changes to en.WP. Please go ahead and make the changes I don’t dare make. Together we are strong. LiliCharlie 00:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I fixed the mistakes you mentioned at the top of the post, but I don't really understand what you are proposing lower down. What characters do you want to use? There are 26 characters on "language dependent" chart now, which I think is too many. When the differences are slight, there is no great lost in removing a row altogether. Traditional vs simplified is not a true language dependency anyway. A Japanese vs. Chinese variation is likely to be of wider interest. So I think we could boil it down to 10 or 15 rows. I like the "Zen" character issue you mentioned before. We should be able to do some more with that. That's certainly a better talking point than the "grass" character that gets brought up so much.
  • I too have an ambitious font project: to get the {{lang-vi}} template to apply the best available fonts for Vietnamese. The first step is a font comparison, which I am doing here. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That’s right, there is no need for a larger number of sample characters. And yes, // is a nice one that can be elaborated on.
  • The reason I insist on the zh-HK vs. zh-TW distinction is that some characters that are dis-unified in TW and hence in Unicode get re-unified in HK, in a way of speaking. This is the reverse of what happened to /. — To get an impression please go to and download the official Hong Kong ISO 10646 reference font DFSongStd/華康標準宋體, and to字型下載 and download the official Taiwanese (general) reference font TW-Sung/全字庫正宋體. Then install them and make them (temporarily or permanently) the fonts your browser uses to display text in the zh-HK and zh-TW locales and then have a look at these characters that are already in the tables of the Han unification article:
兌兑稅税 (zh-HK)
兌兑稅税 (zh-TW)
Actually Hong Kong officials seem to refuse to make the BIG-5 distinction that entered into the Unicode standard but was not judged to be a case of compatibility characters for pre-existing encodings by the IRG, because it doesn’t make sense to the experts from Hong Kong (nor to me, BTW) and because their typographic tradition is much closer to that of Mainland China (and maybe also influenced by the comparatively strong Japanese speaking minority of HK, though this seems less important in this context. — To be sure, what I like to call character “re-unification” is more than just a matter of using different glyphs. Rather it’s a silent but official way of saying: “You BIG-5 encoders and Unicoders have overdone the Han dis-unification thing.”
  • When I said I wanted to closely follow the Unicode Standard I meant that all Unicode Han Database “fields” that have become necessary by the way the Unicode Consortium decided to handle Han characters deserve mention consideration. At this point the complete list of UniHan fields is: kAccountingNumeric, kBigFive, kCangjie, kCantonese, kCCCII, kCheungBauer, kCheungBauerIndex, kCihaiT, kCNS1986, kCNS1992, kCompatibilityVariant, kCowles, kDaeJaweon, kDefinition, kEACC, kFenn, kFennIndex, kFourCornerCode, kFrequency, kGB0, kGB1, kGB3, kGB5, kGB7, kGB8, kGradeLevel, kGSR, kHangul, kHanYu, kHanyuPinlu, kHanyuPinyin, kHDZRadBreak, kHKGlyph, kHKSCS, kIBMJapan, kIICore, kIRG_GSource, kIRG_HSource, kIRG_JSource, kIRG_KPSource, kIRG_KSource, kIRG_MSource, kIRG_TSource, kIRG_USource, kIRG_VSource, kIRGDaeJaweon, kIRGDaiKanwaZiten, kIRGHanyuDaZidian, kIRGKangXi, kJapaneseKun, kJapaneseOn, kJis0, kJis1, kJIS0213, kKangXi, kKarlgren, kKorean, kKPS0, kKPS1, kKSC0, kKSC1, kLau, kMainlandTelegraph, kMandarin, kMatthews, kMeyerWempe, kMorohashi, kNelson, kOtherNumeric, kPhonetic, kPrimaryNumeric, kPseudoGB1, kRSAdobe_Japan1_6, kRSJapanese, kRSKangXi, kRSKanWa, kRSKorean, kRSUnicode, kSBGY, kSemanticVariant, kSimplifiedVariant, kSpecializedSemanticVariant, kTaiwanTelegraph, kTang, kTotalStrokes, kTraditionalVariant, kVietnamese, kXerox, kXHC1983, and kZVariant.
More especially none of the fields that have “Variant” or “Source” in their names can be omitted if we are really talking about Unicode/UniHan, and not Han characters in general. — Rome wasn’t built in a day, and the article can only be developed by and by, too. Han characters are a vast (actually an open-ended) field of research and contemplation.
  • For your work on the lang-vi template make sure you don’t forget the fonts that ship with Mac OS, and maybe Linux and Android as well. Richard Ishida has created an overview of non-Latin-Cyrillic-Greek Windows and Mac OS fonts by script, and he updates the list when new versions of these two OS’s are launched. The links given in the notes section at the bottom of his page might serve you as a starting point for finding Vietnamese Mac OS fonts. If you have no access to a Mac/Linux/Android OS you could try to ask a friend/someone to send you screenshots or allow you to use their computer for a couple of minutes. LiliCharlie 09:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I haven't been purged or anything like that, but thanks for your concern. I took a trip to the delta for a few days. I come back to find my user page missing and the focus of considerable uproar.
Anyway, let's get back to fonts. I downloaded both the Hong Kong and Taiwanese fonts you mentioned above and I added them to the comparison chart in my sandbox. TW-Sung looks all messed up on Google Chrome, so I would advise against its use on Wikipedia. They throw Unicode and Big5 together, so the font has 113,000 character codes -- the opposite of Han unification.
I didn't notice any display problems with DFSongStd, the HK standard font. In the majority of cases, the HK character is identical to the one in the Taiwanese font. In some cases, DFSongStd uses a hybrid of the mainland and Taiwanese character. On Wiki, zh-HK yields the same font as zh-TW. Has HK always had its own fonts? There was no political motive to create a distinct local font under the British, so why would anyone bother? In any case, they obviously have one now. User:Rjanag maintains the {{lang-zh}} template, so we can ask him make appropriate adjustments.
With the fields, I was thinking that we could have a box on the right that gives three or four of the fields for each character. The fields related to nationality strike me as the most relevant. For example, the reader may interpret a row differently depending on whether the character has a Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese field.
{{lang-vi}} should probably make the font look like it does on a Vietnamese site, with Arial or New Times Roman for the alphabetic script and Nom Na Tong for the Han characters.
Do you know what character is being shown on this page? I checked 9.7, but I did not find it. Kauffner (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The character you were looking for in vain is U+51B7 冷. It’s quite a common one meaning cold (literally and figuratively). Unicode has also encoded a corresponding kZVariant/compatibility character U+F92E.
As regards fonts Hong Kong and Taiwan have different needs since people have to be able to write their own different languages that require different characters — Taiwanese Mǐn Nán vs. Cantonese Yuè. Moreover there are special characters in use for place names and proper names that don’t occur elsewhere. Never forget that even tiny Macao needed 16 characters of their own to be encoded in Unicode, and Singapore contributed 226 own characters. — The names issue sometimes has strange effects: For decades even smaller Mainland Chinese character dictionaries showed the “Japanese-only” character 畑 and defined it as a character used as a Japanese family name or similar. The reason was that Chairman Máo had once met a Japanese who used that character in his name... — For such character borrowings UniHan seems a perfect solution to me.
It should be noted that UniHan unifies characters used 1. in different eras 2. at different places 3. for different languages. — FYI, valid ISO 639-3 codes for Chinese languages are: cdo: Min Dong Chinese; cjy: Jinyu Chinese; cmn: Mandarin Chinese; cpx: Pu-Xian Chinese; czh: Huizhou Chinese; czo: Min Zhong Chinese; gan: Gan Chinese; hak: Hakka Chinese; hsn: Xiang Chinese; ltc: Late Middle Chinese; lzh: Literary Chinese; mnp: Min Bei Chinese; nan: Min Nan Chinese (includes Taiwanese); och: Old Chinese; wuu: Wu Chinese (includes Shanghainese); yue: Yue Chinese (includes Cantonese); zho: Chinese (= ISO 639-1 zh) [macrolanguage that includes cdo, cjy, cmn, cpx, czh, czo, gan, hak, hsn, mnp, nan, wuu, yue]. All these require their own set of characters and may be used at the start of locale codes. — There are also ISO 639-3 codes for older forms of Japanese and Korean, but strangely only vie = ISO 639-1 vi for Vietnamese. I have no idea why.
I very much appreciate your efforts to solve display problems and even show the existing differences between Hong Kong and Taiwanese typographic traditions on your fonts page.
I am almost done with my UniHan SVGs. I have decided to show the characters exactly as they are seen in the Unicode character code chart PDFs (only much enlarged), for up to six IRG sources. I hope I can make a preview page with probably 107 SVGs for 206 Unicode characters available soon. — How do you judge the following sentence linguistically and in content: “The reproduction for purely scientific and informational non-profit purposes of this minimal proportion of the Unicode Character Code Charts which are copyrighted by US based Unicode, Inc. falls within the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law and the fair dealing doctrine and similar doctrines of limitations and exceptions to copyright of other jurisdictions.”? LiliCharlie 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Another extension E character[edit]

I noticed that the character for phở, the famous Vietnamese soup, is in Extension E. It is 񣂝 (⿰米頗) and is No. 06234 in the proposal. Perhaps you could make another svg? Kauffner (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

SVG of the character for phở
LiliCharlie 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
That's quite a character! Kauffner (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I put this thing into the Han-Nom chart already, and my friendly stalker put it into the pho article,[1] which was disconcerting but saves me the trouble of having to do it myself. Kauffner (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


Someone is trying to get rid of my Han-Nom article again, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to be encyclopaedic the article must stay. LiliCharlie 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
They could get rid of all the Vietnamese terminology that we've been using for years: Han-Nom, chu Han, Han tu, etc. Then Japan would have "kanji", Korea would have "hanja", but Vietnam would have "Chinese characters." I don't know what to tell them. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


How do you judge the following sentence linguistically and in content: “The reproduction for purely scientific and informational non-profit purposes of this minimal proportion of the Unicode Character Code Charts which are copyrighted by US based Unicode, Inc. falls within the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law and the fair dealing doctrine and similar doctrines of limitations and exceptions to copyright of other jurisdictions.”

I count 56 words, so that's a really long sentence. I'll break it down: "This is a minimal portion of the Unicode Character Code Charts, which are copyrighted by US-based Unicode, Inc. Reproduction for scientific and other non-profit purposes falls within the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law, as well as the equivalent doctrines of other jurisdictions.” Kauffner (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Another character dilemma[edit]

So what do you make of this character: Khiem of Le Duy Khiem.JPG. I got it from Le Chieu Thong, an 18th century king. Is it close enough to / khiêm or some other character so we can encode it? I found a manuscript of the primary source, a well as a transcription. Where I would I expect to see this character, the transcription has a notation that says "維農貢縣古定社人也". Any idea what that means? Perhaps it says, "This king hated historians, so he used a character in his name that has made it very difficult for anyone to write about him." (This is a Unicode smiley). Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

vi-nom on template[edit]

Should {{vi-nom}} be used for Han-Nom on templates?[2] Kauffner (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi, regarding this edit, can I asked were you contacted by email by User Kauffner prior to this edit?

(diff | hist) . . Han-Nom‎; 05:01 . . (+31,522)‎ . . ‎LiliCharlie (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 563384239 by Gaijin42 (talk) — en.WP (being WP’s most international edition) should not make less distinctions than vi.WP and zh.WP (being the WPs most involved in this subject))
The reason for asking, no reflection on your good self, is that the merger-discussion was a public space discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Saying nothing about the vi.wp article (since vi.wp didn't have one, it was translated from English at request of User:Kauffner) but looking at zh:汉喃, what does that really say? that 汉 is 汉, and 喃 is 喃. It isn't much of an article is it? And in any case the issue is English. But anyway, the main question is were you contacted by email prior to the edit above. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
No, there hasn’t been any contact. NEVER. If you don’t believe me, go and ask the NSA. — Thank you for denying I am capable of making my own decisions. And for implicitly accusing Kauffner, too. Cheers. LiliCharlie 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sorry to have had to ask, but you can understand that with the edit warring to suddenly have someone else who didn't take part in the merge discussion suddenly make the same edit raises an eyebrow. It's a reflection on the problem, not on your good self. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn’t take part in that discussion because I am an inexperienced Wikipedian who was uncertain about the rules of the game. You will have observed, however, that I contributed to Kauffner’s ambitious article now and then. And if my memory serves me well it was YOU who wrote on the article’s talk page that my comment on the alleged impossibility of teaching Hán-Nôm should be preserved after the merger. Where is it gone? LiliCharlie 09:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I can't recall the comment, nor did I implement the merge. Off the cuff I can't see why teaching either classical Chinese or demotic Vietnamese would be impossible, but the issue would be is there a printed source saying teaching classical Chinese is impossible, or a printed source saying teaching Vietnamese demotic script would be impossible. If there's a printed source for either of these statements then they could be added to the existing articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I’ve found it; it’s here. — Of course any script (i.e. writing system as defined in Peter T. DANIELS & William BRIGHT (1996): The World’s Writing Sytems) can be written, read and therefore taught. LiliCharlie 12:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
My link to the still existing Han Nôm talkpage doesn’t seem to work; it gets redirected to Chữ nôm. Is it possible to redirct an article but not its talkpage? LiliCharlie 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is a redirect to Chữ nôm, but the talk page is still there under it's old name. It's linked from the merge box at the top of talk:Chữ nôm. As for the sentence you were challenging, after you tagged it as needing a citation, Kauffner removed it, and that wasn't changed when it was merged to Chữ nôm.
As for being new to Wikipedia, sincere discussion is always welcome, e.g. at talk:Chữ nôm. Kanguole 12:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Received pron. section[edit]

Hi, thanks for your advice on how to edit the sample RP material into the Received Pronunciation article. I'm afraid I got waylaid by some urgent matters and have only now got going on this. I seem to have taken a few wrong turns wrt your advice, but have a sort of working paragraph now in my sandbox. The audio file should not, I'm sure, produce the screen display that comes up when you click on the link, and I'm not sure the transcriptions are shown in the right place. If you have the time to take a look I'd be grateful. RoachPeter (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I think it works OK now. RoachPeter (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User talk:RoachPeter/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for help on RP[edit]

Hello, thanks for intervening to help in the matter of copyright status of material on Received Pronunciation. I have left a message for you and Wiereth (well, it's more of a cry for help, actually!) on my own Talk page. RoachPeter (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello, this pronunciation is [pɛːʃ] or [paɪ̯ʃ] ? (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What I hear is a diphthong of [aɪ̯] type. (Historically in French there was a rule /aj/→/ɛ/, which seems “reversed” here.) – C’est un locuteur québécois, n’est-ce pas? —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is [tãpeɪ̯t] or [tãpaɪ̯t] ? (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is my choice I’d say it’s closer to [aɪ̯] than to [eɪ̯]. — Do you know this concise description of the phonetics of French? (The section “L'accent canadien (Québec)” starts on page 28 and the one called “Variantes du canadien” on p. 38; have a look at the illustrations of the vowels and compare them to one another and to other accents. More material on this so-called “natural phonetics” by Luciano Canepari is available for download here.) LiliCharlie (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is hard to know that it's [ivaɛ̯ʁ] or [ivæːʁ]. (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear a centring vowel, not one ending in a front [ɛ̯]. — Why do you write [ʁ] instead of voiceless [χ]? (Cf. your transcription of /-r/ in secondaire.) LiliCharlie (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Because [ʁ] and [χ] is similar. Maybe tempête sounds like [tãpɐɪ̯t] ? (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Please note that if you want narrow “impressionistic” transcriptions your transcribers must all be trained in the same tradition, otherwise they are bound to diverge wildly. — I want you to create a user account and discuss matters on your own talk page. Et si tes connaissances de l’anglais ne suffisent pas à prendre part à une telle discussion on peut délibérer sur ta page de discussion de la Wikipédia française. (Ma langue maternelle est ni celle de Molière ni celle de Shakespeare, alors padonne-moi quelques petites erreurs.) LiliCharlie (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is my user account. This pronunciation is [tɛɪ̯t] or [taɪ̯t] ? Fort123 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is [ɑ̃saɛ̯tχ] or [ɑ̃səɛ̯tχ] ? Fort123 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's [ɑ̃sɐɛ̯tχ]. Fort123 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for adding the phonetic Transkription at my Wikipedia entry !

Bernd J. Kröger Bkroeger (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wie schmeichelhaft! Danke für die Blumen. LiliCharlie (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
gerne doch! Deine Transkription war total korrekt. In der Tat habe ich als Norddeutscher Das /r/ in Bernd vokalisiert.

Ich finde, das ist aber auch richtig für Standarddeutsch. Tja, mit dem J. : es ist in jedem Fall die korrekte Transkription im Standarddeutschen . Gesprochen wird es im deutschen in der Tat seltener . Ich finde das J. Für mich als Wissenschaftler sehr wichtig , da ich damit von anderen bernd Krögers besser unterscheidbar bin. Nochmals vielen Dank für deine Transkription. Bernd Bkroeger (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

quoted you, so...[edit]

I'm gonna get accused of polling maybe, but I quote you in this CfD. I think your comments about national sentiment and expertise and so on were useful; but whether people listen to me or not because I pick apart their faulty logics/perceptions/information at length is dubious; I'm made the issue, as usual, rather than the problem created by someone else who refuses to acknowledge they caused a problem..... it's a long story, and I come off as the bad guy for criticizing someone else's very bad idea and also their abuse of can you criticize a bad idea if not by criticizing it??Skookum1 (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Clara in Blunderland[edit]

Can you look at the discussion and help? Crisco and I cannot seem to understand one another. -- Evertype· 09:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have announced removal of the deletion tag the day after tomorrow. LiliCharlie (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rendering Chinese characters[edit]

Hi there. I saw your comment at module talk ZH regarding the small size of Chinese fonts. If you add the following line to your vector.css file under preferences, you can make template wrapped Chinese text in articles appear how you wish by tweaking the colour/font/size:

span[lang|=zh] { color: purple; font: arial; font-size: 18px}

Cheers,  Philg88 talk 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I already have a solution for that if proper language markup is used (e.g. {{zh}} or {{lang|zh}} etc.). It's a mix of browser preferences and Stylish which is also CSS based, but not restricted to en.WP. Despite a larger font size I use line-height: 100% for CJK characters, which is enough as I don't expect diacritics for CJK, except maybe for Zhuyin. It is extremely nice of you to care about an old person's eyesight and display problems. Thanks a lot. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Glad you have it sorted! Best,  Philg88 talk 21:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nasal Sound[edit]

You reverted my changes from Nasal sound to Nasal Emission. But Nasal Sound is a disambiguation page. That is not a good choice for the link. Can you suggest a better way to handle this? Mb66w (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mb66w: Yes I can. Simply link to Nasalization. This should yield acceptable results in all cases, though when it is clear that only consonants are intended you may also link to Nasal consonant, and for exclusively vowels, to Nasal vowel. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have made the changes. Mb66w (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mb66w: And I have made changes to the Nasal sound disambiguation page ("a nasal sound is a sound produced with nasalization"). Thanks for your inspiration. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I made changes to the Nasal disambiguation page also. You may want to take a look at those and align better with what you did in Nasal sound Mb66w (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mb66w: I have completely rewritten the linguistics section of Nasal. Thanks for prompting me. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Mistaken(?) warning[edit]

Just a heads-up that you placed a warning on my talkpage for "vandalism" to Chinese language, though the actual edit was by Prisencolin and that too was a mistaken blanking.

BTW, in future, it's generally inadvisable to jump to level 3 user warnings such as {{uw-vandalism3}} right off the bat. Those should only be used as a first warning in instances of clear vandalistic or bad-faith editing, which this was obviously not. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right in all points, sorry. Also my edit summary was a bit strange ("two third if the article"). I seems I was much too hasty. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

GA page[edit]

Their is no misconception about no accent. The midwest has many. And many different kinds. I never got this accentless style of stuff and see no reason why it should be included, considering the page itself links to the numerous accents on that page. And I really don't even see what this has to do with general american at all. General American isn't the midwest at all. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There exists a widespread notion that a Midwest accent is close to or even identical with GA. (See for instance the Urban Dictionary: "General American is also known as the Midwestern Standard..." or dialect blog: "In the narrowest sense, the General American “heartland” is found in a tiny chunk of the midwest.") — Not everybody in the English speaking world knows as much about the American Midwest and its multitude of accents as you do, so it's helpful for lots of users to keep this sourced statement. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the page though? And it was already stated the exactness is not known on the page. I don't get what this has to do with the midwest at all. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
A lot of people believe that GA and a Midwestern accent are closely related — see my citations above. This sentence debunks the myth. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And wikipedia is the final authority? Chrishayes00003 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is. Wikipedia is more like a collection of scientific views, conflicting or not. But they should all be reliably sourced. You are welcome to add other scientific views if you can cite such sources. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but it just seemed like to me that you wanted to keep that just to counter what some of those ither websites said. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
What I wanted was to keep a reliably sourced statement alive. Wikipedia is work, and many Wikipedians work hard to find adequate sources. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And what I want to do is remove elements that have nothing to do with GA. It's needless spam. It's not the midwest. And adding how other midwesterners sound contributes nothing to the page. It's already stated within the article page that it has no traceable origins. That is all that needs to be said. Not any of this other useless stuffChrishayes00003 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I copied the above discussion to Talk:General American#GA and Midwest accents
where it can be continued with more participants.

Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

L2 speakers in Japanese[edit]

Shouldn't it be 11.5 millions of people instead of 11,500 millions or 11.5 billion of people speaking Japanese as a second language? I really doubt that there are 11.5 billion of people speaking Japanese as a second language in a wold of 7.5 billion of people.--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's only eleven thousand five hundred (or 0.0115 million) L2 speakers. That's why they don't change the total, which is expressed in millions. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I see, then it should be written 0.0115 million as the number of speakers is always expressed in millions for all other languages, and if L2 speakers is sorted in an descending way, Japanese does not appear at a first place. Love,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Making the table sortable is certainly an irrefutable argument. Thanks for your constructive contribution. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, thanks for your kind words!--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello! I've heard [ˈwɪɫsɐ̃n] at this dictionary, it's wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, LiliCharlie. You have new messages at Talk:World language.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, LiliCharlie. You have new messages at Talk:World language.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello @LiliCharlie:, I left a reply at the talk page, thank you. ( (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC))

Ignoring messages[edit]

Why are you blatantly ignoring my responses on the talk page? If you don't want to be involved in the discussion then just say so. I can see that your replying to everyone else's messages on other talk pages but you're just ignoring mine, don't you think I deserve an explanation for your sudden disappearance? I can see you're still active on Wikipedia. ( (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

I'm not sure whether you didn't see this message which is hard to believe or if it was true that you didn't but I'm going to "ping" you so you see this message, @LiliCharlie:. If you don't want to be involved in the discussion you can say you're not interested so I don't need to keep on checking back to see if you've replied or not. ( (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC))
I refuse to get involved in discussions with new IPs who pretend they are the same person as someone else. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Well I am not a different person @LiliCharlie:, if you look at the geolocation of my IP address it locates to Victoria, Australia each time, I am not a different person, I am the same user it's just that my IP address always changes every few days and there are users on Wikipedia who I have mentioned this to in order for them to know that they're talking to the same person when I'm talking with them on talk pages. I should've have told you that my IP address always changes but I thought the problem might be resolved in a few days and not a week so I didn't mention it. If you want to check my geolocation there is a link at the bottom of each user page. ( (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC))
Hello @LiliCharlie:, could you please stop ignoring my messages I told you that I am the same person. It's absurd to believe that a different IP user would come directly to the World language talk page and leave messages when registered Wikipedia users don't even frequent that page often. I am the same user and I have told you that I geolocate to Victoria, Australia so could you please stop ignoring me, you are being extremely rude. ( (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

Ignoring messages again[edit]

Hello @LiliCharlie:, just so you know I thought the way you treated me was quite unfair and rude. I gave you an explanation but you did not give me a reply. I hope you don't treat other users the same way you did to me in the future. ( (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC))


Based on Unicode allocation and it's size ß is an uppercase letter, much like Ð and Þ. It is common to see the letter ß in all caps, especially on sport jerseys (See KIEßLING). In fact, it does not look strange if the letter 'große' is capitalized to 'GROßE.'

Can we remove the fact that ß is "lowercase only" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:4CC:DDA8:B5B7:8287:C57F (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, ß is lowercase and its uppercase counterpart is . 'große' should actually be capitalised as 'GROSSE' and less commonly (unofficially and strongly criticised) as 'GROẞE', not 'GROßE'. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: Here is a scan from an English document of 1586 in which the words witness, assuring, thankfulness, goodness and blessings are written as witneße, aßuring, thankfulneße, goodneße and bleßings. (The scan is from this blog.) As you see ß is merely a ligature of ss. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
P.P.S.: Also have a look at Arthur Guinness's signature in this photo. (It's something like Arth Guinneſs — or Arth Guinneß by German or older English standards.) Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, LiliCharlie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)



What is "r."? Please reply on my talk page. (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mandarin as official in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

Hello, I've looked at the links that you provided from both the Hong Kong and Macau governments regarding official language policy in the two territories. However, their constitutions only provide Chinese (ambiguously mentioned) as an official language alongside their historic colonial languages. In practice, Cantonese is the de facto working language of the government and Mandarin is hardly ever used, only when officials from the Beijing government are involved, hence when simultaneous interpretation in Mandarin is used. Having lived in Hong Kong and visited Macau multiple times, Mandarin is not as omnipresent as you'd expect or want it to be much to the CCP's dismay.

When official emergency announcements (not routine) are provided on transit, media, etc. in Chinese, Cantonese is the only variant used. Under the one country, two systems policy, Chinese equates to Cantonese in these territories (although recent broken promises by China prove to be a challenge). Therefore, Mandarin has a position similar to what Spanish has in the U.S. or French in the Canadian province of Ontario, a minority language that's provided due to the large number of users present in the territories but not official, although in this case, visitors rather than residents. -- User:Moalli (talk) -- 08:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I'd like to add that government media in Hong Kong (RTHK) and Macau (TDM) have their free to air Chinese networks in Cantonese and their primary Chinese education curriculum in Cantonese. A link from the HSK, the official Mandarin standardized test sponsored by the Chinese government, also identifies Cantonese as the spoken form of Chinese in these territories [3]. Give this ambiguity in the Basic Laws, it'd make just as much sense to add Shanghainese or Hokkien as official languages since they fall under the "Chinese language" umbrella. -- User:Moalli (talk) -- 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a strange definition of official language, which has nothing to do with a majority of people who speak a certain vernacular, nor with schooling or the media, but a lot with certificates, forms and other documents issued by and used in governmental offices — hence the word official. Even the laws in HK and MO are laid down in Standard Chinese (plus English and Portuguese respectively).
An official language is not at all the same as a national language or a majority language, witness the situation in Namibia and many other countries. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay I totally understand where you're going now. Yes, official documents in the two regions are laid down in standard Chinese, but it refers to standard written Chinese rather than a specific spoken vernacular. Makes this ambiguity even more confusing. While Cantonese itself does have a colloquial written form, it has not been completely standardized and hence, the written form is standard vernacular written Chinese, which coincidentally matches with Putonghua perfectly. Cantonese speakers still read in their own variant with these characters, although it will sound very formal. In that case, might a suggestion be to still remove the two countries from the spoken Standard Chinese infobox but mention their use in inter-governmental affairs with Beijing using the sources that you have provided? -- Moalli (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If the article Standard Chinese was only dealing with standard spoken Chinese I might agree. But it obviously doesn't. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it seems that it does. Again, there is a difference between spoken 'standard' Chinese as defined by the PRC (Putonghua) and standard written Chinese (not spoken) that is used by speakers of any Chinese variant and on official HK/Macau documents. There was even a debate on the talk page about defining what standard Chinese vs Mandarin is when regarding this article. Initially, these two territories were excluded from the infobox for a reason until someone with 'Marxist' in his username decided to tag them on it. In order to provide a factual and neutral POV, it would be best to only mention the territories in the body with the sources since they the language isn't de jure or even de facto official as their Basic Laws leave it to ambiguity. -- Moalli (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The article Standard Chinese clearly covers the written language. It does so in the introduction and even has a dedicated section Writing system. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The main article links to written Chinese, which definitely is not the same as spoken language. From article: The writing system for almost all the varieties of Chinese is based on a set of written logograms that has been passed down with little change for more than two thousand years. Each of these varieties of Chinese has developed some new words during this time, words for which there are no matching characters in the original set. It does not mention the role of Putonghua at all. Any variant of Chinese is written using this system, which just happens to match how standard Chinese is spoken. However, thank you for putting this to debate on the article page. -- Moalli (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Again this is not true. Not all varieties of Chinese are written using Chinese characters. — If you are not an expert then why don't you take a few minutes to check what you claim to be facts? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: The Chinese equivalent of Standard Chinese is not 普通话 or Putonghua, but (现代)标准汉语. Please remember that Mandarin is a pluricentric language — like English, BTW. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

List of territorial entities where German is an official language[edit]

I didn't come across D-A-CH either until XING (and others), but makes some sense to me (not completely, as plates for Austrian are in fact not the expected German Ö). ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 22:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to introduce the abbreviation, cf. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not correct to randomly insert information from sources that have nothing to do with German as an official language; D-A-CH simply doesn't seem to be a technical term in this field of knowledge. (BTW the term Dachsprache is important for the article Standard German which covers standardized varieties of German from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but this is mere coincidence since the word is derived from German Dach "roof" + Sprache "language.") — If you would like to provide information about number plates you can edit one of the articles Vehicle registration plate, Vehicle registration plates of Europe or List of international vehicle registration codes. (International vehicle registration codes always consist of up to three basic Latin letters A–Z without diacritics, so Ö would not be "expected," but illegal.) Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Writing system[edit]

Thanks, but the major issue is that the Spanish article material copied is sourced to a book published by SAIS, the Scientific Atlantology International Society. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. Plus "Paleolithic linear writing (ELPA)" is far too old even for proto-writing which is disputable by nature. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(not so) recent changes at standard chinese phonology and pinyin[edit]

Hello. It seems that User:向日葵的夏天 has made certain changes that brought the transcription at Standard Chinese phonology and pinyin back to the complicated old transcription and away from Duanmu, Lin and Lee & Zee. Do you think we should keep his changes? I've avoided reverting further to prevent an edit war.--Officer781 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Officer781, what I want is 1. a uniform transcription in all en.WP articles that 2. conforms to IPA usage.
Here is a citation from the section The Principles of the International Phonetic Association on page 159 of the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association:
"4 The construction and use of the IPA are guided by the following principles:
(a) When two sounds occurring in a given language are employed for distinguishing one word from another, they should wherever possible be represented by two distinct symbols without diacritics. Ordinary roman letters should be used as far as practicable, but recourse must be had to other symbols when the roman alphabet is inadequate."
It seems the transcription system 向日葵的夏天 has introduced constantly violates IPA Principle 4 (a) since neither the diacritics nor some special non-roman letters are necessary. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm copying this conversation over to standard chinese phonology and getting the editor involved to discuss.--Officer781 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)



Hej LiliCharlie! Concerning this revert and the message you left on anonymous' talk page: wnen I look at the image, the word reads utilißimae. Not exactly what anonymous had written, but also not what you reverted to. Richard 09:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: I had the file renamed on Commons. Richard 10:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I just read the file name without actually scrolling down to the image so I thought the intended word was ultißimae “the very last ones (feminine).” Thank you for renaming the file. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I figured as much. Perhaps it woud be an idea to review your remark on anonymous' talk page? Richard 13:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done. I have deleted that edit. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ;) Richard 15:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

German alphabet[edit]

Hello ! I just can see that you are among the last contributors to our German orthography article. I find it wrong , to state that letters as Ä, Ö and Ü are considered "special" in the perspective of that article. I have not removed anything, but added. I think it's polite to alert you , since I can see that the last changes is a year old. I'm not looking for any warring, but am looking for the truth, including sources. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you give more evidence about the deletion of my edit in "CJK Unified Ideographs"?[edit]

Shuowen radical 2: shàng
Shuowen radical 479: èr

You said that U+2011E 𠄞 is a variant version of 上, and is not equivalent to U+4E8C 二. Can you give any link or extra examples to explain that? -- Albert Micah Hang (Talk) 11:06 Beijing Time (UTF+8), May 29th, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Albert Micah Hang, you can look up the character at or at for instance. In the famous 說文解字 dictionary (which was written in seal script) both are radicals: 𠄞 shàng is radical 2 while èr is radical 479. For an overview of the Shuowen radicals see also The 540 Shuowen Seal Radicals - numbered.svg. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi LiliCharlie, I have looked at your comment and seen the links you give. In these links, they are the same. HOWEVER, I have searched a couple of other websites that writes the radical 2 as 丄, like [4] and [5], and their shape are NOT the same as yours. Albert Micah Hang (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Albert Micah Hang, and thank you for your interesting links. My software version of the Shuowen dictionary which aims at reproducing the original text by 許慎 has 𠄞 shàng as radical 2, and these are the 10 characters and variant characters grouped together under this radical:
Shuowen Jiezi, all 10 characters under radical 2.png
《說文解字‧注》 by 段玉裁 is cited as the source for this enumeration of characters which correspond to the more "modern" Hàn characters 𠄞、丄(上)、帝、𢂇、㫄(旁)、𣃟、𣃙、雱、𠄟、丅(下).
In ancient times the two strokes of the character èr were of equal length, but later the upper stroke became shorter than the lower one leading to confusion with 𠄞 shàng. Maybe the reason that in later Shuowen editions shàng (the second character of my illustration) was sometimes or even usually taken to represent radical 2 was to avoid this confusion.
Anyway there is no chance that at the time the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B block was added to Unicode in March 2001 someone thought the character èr was still missing from Unicode. It had already been a Unicode character since June 1992, of course. And it is also not conceivable that all the reviewers of the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B proposal confused this extremely simple two-stroke character with any other character. It is clear that 𠄞 (U+2011E) was intended for something else, namely shàng, and this is the way Chinese researchers and dictionary makers use this Unicode character. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)