Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 2

message: The Korean template (such as can be seen at Sujeonggwa) is much nicer visually than the new one: Template:Chinese; could we please use one that's comparable to the Korean one (but with a different color) -- an example of this template can be seen at Zhajiang mian, and the original template at Template:Chinesename? It can be adapted according to what other things people want in it. Thanks for your consideration. Badagnani 09:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: * There is the current :Template:Chinese which can do Chinese names but not Japanese or any other names. But it can do multiple names.
* There is :Template:Chinesename which can do simple language names, but not multiple names. It can switch between traditional or simplified displays. 
* There is :Template:cjk which can do Chinese, Japanese etc. But not multiple names.
It would be best to just combine the best feature of all three. Benjwong 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The color scheme of cjk doesn't look very good, though it might have potential. Chinesename and Chinese are similar; I support adding extra languages to "Chinesename" rather than using "Chinese" (the colors and layout of this one are strange too). Badagnani 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On one hand you said that "the colors and layout of this one [the "Chinese" template] are strange"; on the other hand you said that "Chinesename and Chinese are similar". In that regard, the two templates - "Chinesename" and "Chinese" - are equally strange. :-P - Alan 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize that I have nothing overly constructive to contribute, but I would definitely support the creation of an effective template for this. The more features in a single template, the better. It compartmentalizes things nicely, and avoids the problem of multiple templates vying for the same space. (I rather like Template:Cjk, if the colors were changed, and the ability to do multiple names were added.) LordAmeth 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you like Template:Cjk. However, I believe that we should worry more about whether the templates are informative, clear and systematic at this point, instead of putting too much attention on the colour scheme. Aesthetic is something subjective and arbitary. While some people would like colour scheme A better, some people would like colour scheme B better. It would be an endless discussion to talk about which colour "looks nice". But overall, the color scheme is something that can easily be modified in the program code. Perhaps we can ask around and find out the colour that most people like, and then switch to the new colour scheme. That shouldn't be too big of a problem to worry about. Alan 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One very serious problem is that the template syntax of cjk and Chinese are extremely complicated, something that is not true of "Chinesename." And cjk takes up a lot more space, being less economical in that regard.Badagnani 21:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well, I have very little experience in coding, so whatever others think is good should be fine. I think the key thing is to make sure the template is flexible to represent as many different languages and different scripts as may be needed on any given article. LordAmeth 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am ok with changing to :Template:Chinese if it can do the Japanese and the many languages like :Template:Cjk. The problem is that I am not much of a wiki coder. Let me do a comparison chart. I will print result here. Hang on. Benjwong 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we are not really "changing to :Template:Chinese". Notice that:Template:Chinese has been existing, and has been widely used, BEFORE another Wikipedian wrote the additional template, :Template:Chinesename. Also, as I mentioned above, :Template:Chinese can display names in Japanese and many other languages. - Alan 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Template:Chinese still looks very strange. Better than when it had the dark blue highlighting on top, but still strange, non-standard. Badagnani 22:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As a mentioned above, aesthetic is something subjective and arbitary. You think :Template:Chinese is strange. But a lot of other Wikipedians might actually it. I think :Template:Chinese is actually pretty colourful and attractive, while :Template:Chinesename is rather dull and unattractive. Alan 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just the color, but the design (such as the fact that Chinesename is more economical of space). And the syntax of the template is very, very complex. Any number of new languages can be added to the Chinese name template, so that's not a problem. Badagnani 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't believe the transliteration should be hidden, as in Template:Chinese. Badagnani 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea of hiding the transliteration was a consensus of a long discussion started by Hong Kong Wikipedians long ago. But no one figured out how to write codes that does that until recently. The rationale behind hiding the transliteration was that there are just too many transliterations to be shown (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin, Tongyong Pinyin, Wades-Giles, Jyutping, Yale, POJ, and a lot more...). These transliterations take up a lot of space and are not something that most readers would be interested in. You were complaining that the template took up a lot of space, but now the transliterations are displayed "on demand", and the template now takes up a lot less space than "Chinesename". I don't think the complain "translierations hould be hidden" makes much sense. - Alan 23:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Comparison charts are coming. Hang on. Benjwong 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are currently three templates in use. Not one of them has all the advantage. We need to figure out if we can combine all three into 1 good template. Benjwong 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Chinese continued

message: Technically, renaming of template name is easy. Redirection will take care of the rest. If one really want to clean up articles, a bot can handle these tedious tasks. — HenryLi (Talk) 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I need at least a concensus that we should limit to one template first. I have a way to manually convert the flags in Template:Chinesename to Template:Chinese. It is not robotic but its managable. User:Badagnani still have concerns about the new features added to Template:Chinese. Until at least that part is decided, we can't move further. Currently there is no consistency at all with two templates floating around. Everytime an article is created we have to decide which one to use. Benjwong 07:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - The color issue is minor. We can have a new color every week, it is one flag. There might be people preferring pink. It is purely opinionated. About Template:Koreanname it does 4 flags literally. That won't cut it on existing articles right now. Benjwong 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - If User:Alanmak was imposing changes that were bad, it would be vandalism. I think his changes were there to help. Whether he forced the templates in or not, I wasn't even in the very first conversation to begin with. When I brought this up, I was hoping to standardizing on 1 template for the sake of consistency. I would say that if Template:Chinesename can be enhanced to match every feature in Template:Chinese, then we have a real tug-of-war. But right now the comparison chart suggest Template:Chinese has far more flags. Benjwong 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - Also as Henry was saying. There is the possibility that this template is good enough to be renamed to something universally used and not just Chinese. Benjwong 07:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - I think I will come back tomorrow to talk this one out. For now I hope User:Alanmak and a few more people have opinions. This conversation can go either way cause Template:Chinese has been used way before Template:Chinesename. He can say that we forced Template:Chinesename in. The only thing I am concerned with is the articles which are split in half at the moment with both styles. Unless we can match the features in Template:Chinesename somehow, it seems to be a disadvantage if we keep using it. As articles like Zin Dou has multiple names. Dried shredded squid could have used multiple names. etc etc etc. Remember that the longer we wait, the more massive the changes to come. I'd rather convert 100 now, then 10000 a few months later. Then we are stuck really bad. Benjwong 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - My concern is that this never settles. And the number of templates used just multiply. If you look at the actor/people templates. Eventually those reached a concensus. Because this is a Chinese-only-related template. Don't expect 50 people to chip in. That is unlikely going to happen. And I am equally serious when I say... the longer we wait, the harder it will be to fix this later. Maybe we should have a set time frame. Anyways I'll continue this tomorrow. Benjwong 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - Also, consider that scenario with Zin Dou. I thought one name was good until someone gave it the name "Matuan". Now we have to flip templates to accomodate multiple names. It is better to go with the most feature-packed template the first time around. Benjwong 07:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Chinese continued 2

message: Call me a mainlander, but the way Template:Chinese orders the transliterations is not satisfactory. While it is true that Hanyu pinyin is used only for Mandarin, there is no escaping the fact that it is the international standard in transliterating Chinese words. As it stands, the template puts Jyut ping ahead of pinyin, which is confusing and misleading for non-Chinese (and Chinese) readers who may not know all the intricacies in terms of varieties of Chinese - e.g. a schoolkid doing his project. --PalaceGuard008 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they're listed alphabetically. This is what happened about a year ago at the English Wiktionary, where those promoting Chinese dialects separated all the dialects from the "Chinese" heading and listed them all alphabetically, interspersed with all the other world languages. So of course "Cantonese" always comes before "Mandarin." Badagnani 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with PalaceGuard008. Jyut ping itself is not well-known as a transliteration system (even for Cantonese speakers), and trails far behind Pinyin in terms of notability and usage. To place it that high on the template does appear to be pushing it a tad too far.--Huaiwei 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Chinese vs Chinesename - ordering of romanisations 

message: Can we get a vote and get this over with once in for all. Please vote Template:Chinese or Template:Chinesename? This is never ending and is wasting far too much time.
*Template:Chinese: Benjwong 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - This is nothing more than wishful thinking. The issues/problems clearly remain (as you have acknowledged at least 3 or 4 times in the past two days). Badagnani 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - Yes cosmetic issues. Benjwong 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - This is now at least the third time you've misconstrued other editors' comments. Is the lack of transparency in the code of template "Chinese" cosmetic? No, it is not. Badagnani 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - If the flags are the same, you can even wipe out all the codes to make Template:Chinese look identical to Template:Chinesename later. It's that simple. Benjwong 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we get a vote

message: This seems like a current/active discussion and thus I'm not sure it should have been archived. We're still discussing the order of languages and I think this is a related issue. Badagnani 05:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has not been an issue for sometime. As there is a "order=st" flag in Template:Chinese and "context=s" in Template:Chinesename. Benjwong 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But didn't you say that for some articles you'd prefer "ts" over "st"? Badagnani 05:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By default both are set for traditional display. When called with the appropriate flags, both will switch to simplified display. I tried both out yesterday. Benjwong 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be slightly more clear about what you mean (we don't all know the programming terminology you're using about "flags"). Badagnani 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to article Five-spice powder add "order=st" into the template. Go to Sweet bean paste add "context=s" into the template. These will change to simplified chinese display. Benjwong 06:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, your last comment made this even less clear. Can you be clear in your description? I would appreciate it very much. Badagnani 06:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By default both templates show Traditional chinese text first. If you add those flags into the template as described above, it will change to display Simplified chinese text first. Go to Five-spice powder, add "order=st" into the Template:Chinese. Benjwong 06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes sense, but where in the template would one put that piece of code? Just anywhere, surrounded by | bars? If this is the case, it should be added to the Manual of Style so everyone knows that this is now available. Your expertise and work on these sorts of things is greatly appreciated. Badagnani 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the line in Five-spice powder. You can see "order=st". If you compare the old history, it used to say Traditional first. Benjwong 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need input about whether Trad. or Simplified should come first in template 

message: This edit has archived too much very recent/important discussion. Badagnani 07:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Okay, here's my proposal for how to proceed from here:
* Identify deficiencies with either template.
* Fix these deficiencies or identify ways to fix them.
* Assess which one is better, or which one would be most easily perfected.
* Standardise to that template.
If youse are all with me so far, I'll get the ball rolling by identifying the key objections to each template. Let's first work these out, then we can proceed to talk about how and whether they can be fixed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare the templates 

message: Ok, I am moving everything from template Chinesename over to template Chinese. There is officially no reason to keep Template:Chinesename.  I am also considering moving the contents of template Chinesekoreanname over afterwards.  Benjwong 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Chinesename contents to be moved

message: *Issue 1 - Mandarin has now been converted to "Guan" in the hidden transliterations. This isn't right. The new-fangled Chinese name for Mandarin is "Guanhua", not "Guan" - "Guan" means Mandarin (bureaucrat); "Guanhua" means the language. It's a bit like writing "Canton" instead of "Cantonese".
*Issue 2 - "Guanhua" is not a suitable title for the group of romanisations included under it. All of those romanisations are for Standard Mandarin, or putonghua (mainland) /guoyu (eslewhere) in Chinese. Labelling them "Mandarin" is okay, but labelling them "Guanhua" is not right: in Chinese linguistics, Standard Mandarin or putonghua is related to but distinct from guanhua. It adopts much of its pronunciation from the Beijing dialect of guanhua, but it is not the same.
*Issue 3 - "Mandarin Pinyin" is displayed unhidden. That's a neologism, and plus is not precise. "Hanyu Pinyin" or just "pinyin" should suffice. As we have discussed before, pinyin is not just used to romanise Mandarin - it is also the (international) default for other dialects. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple of content problems

message: Just as a comment from an uninvolved person who's part of the Disambiguation Repair team.... In Template:Chinese, Cantonese links to a dab page; please have it link to an actual page, I guess either Cantonese (linguistics) or Standard Cantonese. -- Hongooi 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Benjwong 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't link to dab pages 

message: I originally posted my thoughts on the matter | here (before finding out this is where I should be posting it) but below is a (more neutral) summary of what I think would make Chinese articles in Wiki neater and more consistent.
1. No Simplified Chinese in Taiwan, HK, and Macao-related articles (places, companies, etc) and no Traditional Chinese in (mainland) China-related articles. TW/HK/Macao do not use simplified in an official capacity, and China does not use traditional in an official capacity. Why not make the articles neater and reflect each territory's differences by not including all variants? Adding Cantonese (Baak Ging) to Beijing's article is just as unnecessary as adding Mandarin (Jiu Long Tang) to Kowloon Tong's article.
2. No Mandarin pinyin in HK/Macao-related articles, using only Cantonese romanisation (Yale or others, but just one with consensus) in these articles. Cantonese (again, see my previous post on HK talk page) is the de facto official language, and Mandarin is not used in government or formal situations in these areas. It respects Macao/HK's history and status as SAR, and reflects place name and language differences between Mandarin and Cantonese. Plus, it's neater and unnecessary to include 2 sets of characters and 2 Chinese languages in each HK/Macao page. 
3. Not sure about local langauges, e.g. Shanghainese. Cantonese is officially used in govt in HK, which in addition to HK and Macao's history makes this case unique, but in China and Taiwan, govt official usage is Mandarin. 
4. Articles such as Pronunciation of Hong Kong are only a temporary solution. If readers are really curious about how to say Shanghai in Cantonese or how to say Kowloon Tong in Mandarin, I'm sure there are many Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese/Taiwanese/etc) dictionaries online or in print. The main focus should be on the content of the article, and by minimising linguistic info. that is not applicable (e.g. Mandarin variants in HK articles, Cantonese variants in China articles), articles would be cleaner.
137.189.4.1 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response to your suggestion in Talk:Hong_Kong#Traditional_and_Simplified_Characters.2C_Romanisation.2C_Etc.. Wikipedia isnt simply about replicating what the politicians want. If we consider language as strictly cultural, I do not see why we should banter to their desires to manipulate language for their political goals and aspirations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huaiwei (talk • contribs).
This is near impossible to reinforce.  Benjwong 04:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I would be happy to do it. I would feel more comfortable to do it if it were our consensus or policy, but this discussion has been rather inactive (on both pages). I think my guidelines above are fair enough, and barring any protest I'd like to see if it works on wiki. 137.189.4.1 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardisation of Traditional/Simplified, Mandarin/Cantonese Articles