Talk:Zuo Zhuan

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Can anyone tell me about the textual history of the Zuozhuan. What is the earliest xylograph, what are the extant manuscripts, which is the earliest, etc. etc. I would love to see some of this information incorporated into the article. Tibetologist (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual history of the Zuozhuan 

message: It's not clear what a duke is in this context. Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really "duke" anyway because the Chinese title gong 公 is used to refer to a deceased lord of any rank.  See C.N. Tay, “On the Interpretation of kung (Duke?) in the Tso-chuan,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.4 (1973): 550-55.--74.103.157.38 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point, most early China specialists just say "lord."--108.16.230.212 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke? 

message: The presented bilingual text (as well as any other Legge translation appearing here) is actually Legge's translation to the chun qiu, not the zuo zhuan. The details from the zuo zhuan are only included in Legge's commentary together with details from other sources, his own conculsions and his own research notes. There are indeed places where he gives a full translation of the zuo zhuan's passeges, but it seems that he mostly gives the reader a digested version of what is written, and not a direct translation. The duke (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, Legge included a complete translation of the Zuo.  It is maddeningly interspersed in his notes, as you've observed, but the translation is complete (and amazingly accurate, considering his circumstances).--74.103.157.38 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilingual text of Zuo Zhuan

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zuo zhuan →  – Correct capitalisation, per Wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles) of capitalising every word in a title (a book title in this case), and consistent with Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Zhuan; all three are Confucian commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals which are usually grouped together, hence the relevance of the other two articles. Zuo Zhuan should be the main article and Zuo zhuan should redirect to it, not the other way around as is presently the situation. Scyrme (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: * Searching on Google Scholar it looks like there are plenty of examples of "Zuo zhuan", "Zuo Zhuan", and "Zuozhuan". There are even examples where "Zuo zhuan" is used in the text but "Zuo Zhuan" is used in the title. This suggests to me that there is no universal standard and that capitalisation depends on the particular publisher's standards. If this is so, then I think Wikipedia's Manual of Style takes precedence here. Scyrme (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Outside academia, it also looks like published translations of the work that leave the title untranslated are sold as "Zuo Zhuan"; same seems to be true for untranslated Chinese texts sold to English-language markets. Since this is Wikipedia and not an academic journal, I think this is also something to consider. Scyrme (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a note, if we were to apply the standard of "Zuo zhuan" on Wikipedia, then a lot of other articles are going to need renaming to conform to that standard, starting with the two other commentaries. Scyrme (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  Thinking about it some more and, regarding "except for words that are themselves proper nouns", since in the context of this article "Zuo Zhuan" is (perhaps arguably) a loan into in English, and not simply a transcription of Chinese as is the case with academic articles about the text which render it as "Zuo zhuan", then general English conventions apply; in English the entire title is itself a proper noun so should be capitalised. Scyrme (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Is that so? Searching on Google Scholar I can find plenty of examples of both conventions – some papers use title case; others use sentence case. I checked a few other English Wikipedia articles, like Tao Te Ching and Shuowen Jiezi, and they seem to use title case for these works. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *  Wikipedia:Requests for comment#What not to use the RfC process for and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Categories suggest RfC is not appropriate here since this about applying guidelines to a specific case. Although maybe someone should start a separate discussion with a RfC to clarify Wikipedia policy/guidelines regarding this issue more generally, idk. Scyrme (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry, I was suggesting an RFC to clarify MOS:FOREIGNTITLE for non-Latin scripts, not at this page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 June 2021