Talk:Kangxi radical

message: Where did the readings of those radicals come from? In Microsoft Windows, some of those characters yield different readings: 
一(yī)丨(shù)丶(diǎn)丿(piě)乙(yǐ)亅(jué)
--Voidvector 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readings 

message: I can't make any sense of the phrase walk enclosure. What does it mean? --08-15 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is because the two parts of radical 144 enclose the additional strokes in compositions. -- 193.196.166.161 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  walk enclosure 

message: Comparing the pinyin listed for 彡, "xū" conflicts with the list here, http://www.yellowbridge.com/chinese/radicals.php, where it is listed as shān.  Wikionary also lists it as shān (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/彡).  Also, my pinyin input program (SCIM) also pulls it up under "shan".  I've not seen it listed as xū from any other source, leading me to think this entry is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.89.16 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Radicals and characters may have different pronuntiations. 丨 (rad002) is called gǔn when radical, and otherwise shù. 丶 (rad003) is called zhǔ when radical, and dian otherwise. Yug (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect pinyin for 彡? 

message: Is it me, or is the radical 纟 missing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin chen2003 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 纟 missing? 

message: Could someone describe the difference & overlap with Chinese radicals? A lot of radicals seem to be the same, but Unicode has two separate blocks, for Kanxi and CJK radicals. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap & difference with [[Radical (Chinese character)|Chinese radical]]? 

message: 5 of the radicals are {lang=zh-Hant} rather than {lang=zh-Han}. is this intentional or a mistake?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.102.206 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  lang 

message: Does the frequency of the radical in the table signify the frequency of the radical AND its variants, or only the main radical?
I think it's worth putting a footnote about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.255.29.221 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency 

message: Maybe it's a problem with the font, but according to my default font (wenquanyi) and the oxford dictionary, the character gu3 骨 is incorrectly written in the .png chart. I'ts between 馬 and 高. The 3rd stroke should be left of centre, not right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stozi (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using simplified chinese fonts and dictionary, simplified such 冎. The traditional (kangxi) is on the right side, such 骨 (display right side on my PC). Yug (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  骨 (#188) Incorrect in the .png 

message: The 189 modern radicals are to manage better on this page. There is a column for them, which display simplified version. This column should also display deletion and conservation within from Kangxi to the modern list. Yug (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion, Column Simplified: Add deleted radicals (—), and conserved radical (→ or ↔). Yug (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Xinhua Zidian radicals|List of modern radicals]] 

message: This list must have been there once, but appears to be removed now. As it's now a red link, I've wiped its reference off the article. Does anyone know when this was removed, and why? -andy 77.190.3.220 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember it having existed, but if it doesn't, it really should. bd2412 T 20:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Japanese radicals removed? 

message: As a student of Japanese, I decided to learn the meaning of these radicals by heart, in order to improve my memory retention of kanji. I studied some, but noticed disrepancies with the list and the indicated sources. As a good wikipedian, I edited the content to better reflect the truth. Though after much confusion, I've realized that the webpage sources have different and often conflicting translations of the radicals indicated on this webpage. Beckons the question, which source is reliable and which one is not? As for now, I've decided to trust the Unicode definition of these radicals as it seems to be the most reliable of the sources indicated. I suggest the list should be edited to reflect the Unihan definition of these radicals. I will wait some time, but unless there is some better suggestion, I will look through the list and make the necessary changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinekun (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disrepancies  

message: It looks to me that the full Table of radicals is the main content of this article that is not also in the Radical (Chinese character) article, and as such is this article's primary reason for existing.  Also, the table isn't appreciably longer than many other lists on WP (e.g. List of countries by x).  Wouldn't it make more sense to display the full table rather than hiding in collapsed form?--Wikimedes (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Would not look bad in the article, both in size and in relevance. -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  collapsed table of radicals 

message: In the Kangxi table of radicals, I think there is an error for radical 96. The table lists 玉, but elsewhere it is given as 王. I'll be honest, I don't know whether this is an error or a variant form, but I think the discrepancy needs to be addressed. Chasuk (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no mistake. Kangxi Radical 96 is the 'jade' 玉 radical, but when written on the left side of a character the jade radical is written without a dot, like 王 (it is still written with a dot at the bottom of a character). I don't know what discrepancy needs to be fixed as you do not specify what exactly you mean by "elsewhere it is given as 王". BabelStone (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in table of radicals? 

message: I might be misreading this, but the simplified column often lists traditional forms in parentheses with "pr." before them. Does 'pr.' stand for "PRior form?" Easy fix -- could we add some sort of annotation or endnote to explain that?
On another level, I'm not sure why that's in the "Simplified" column. And it seems like some of the variants in the first column are regional variants, but others usage variants, based on when the radical is placed inside other characters. It's hard to distinguish them all.
It would be really helpful to have a "Variants" column for all of these, and within that explain each form with a few words. "Side of characters," "Regional - Japan," etc. Bit of an overhaul, but does anybody else think that might be more clear? --Thomas B♘talk 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified column "pr." entries 

message: Should 朩 be added as a variant? Schaumbur (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical 76: 木 

message: Should 巜 be added as a variant? Schaumbur (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical 47: 川 

message: Given that the stroke count is also displayed within the table, dividing the table up into multiple tables according to stroke count doesn't show any new information. On the other hand, it is no longer possible to sort the entire table by one column. For example, it can be quite useful to sort by frequency, but at the moment it is only possible to sort by frequency within radicals with a given stroke-count. I'm not sure if anything else was also changed when the table structure was modified, but if that change to the structure could be reverted I think it would make the table more useful. Thanks. (Feb 20, I have changed it back, being unaware of a compelling reason to split the table up.)Straw Dogberry (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  radical table should not be subdivided by stroke count