Template talk:Zh-cp

message: I recommend we sort the uses of this template into either simplified or traditional.  To do that just look at the "What links here" link and replace the zh-cp templates with either zh-sp or zh-tp as appropriate.  If the character is ambiguous (as they often are), I recommend picking the one more appropriate for the context... ie simplified for contemporary articles relating to China and traditional for articles relating to Taiwan.  Another alternative is to just represent both, which we can do by using either the zh-tsp or zh-stp template. --BenjaminTsai Talk 06:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my message on your usertalkpage and the zh-c tfd page. Thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No. In the case where s and t are different, then they should be specified with a more specific template, but if they are the same, we should use this template. Specifying t or s on the basis of "context" is ridiculous, unprecise, and misleading. Just because characters are used in certain context does not make them "traditional" or "simplified". Characters are "simplified" if they have been made to differ from "traditional". They are "traditional" if another simplified form exists. By specifying either s or t, you imply that the other exists when it does not. Listing the same chinese both is reundant and unncessary. i just dont see what is wrong with this template. --Jiang 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specifying t or s (or both) on the basis of context is not ridiculous and is a fairly straight forward process, but I will not try to convince you on this point.  I am willing to concede that it is not necessary to make this distinction in cases where both character set overlaps.  My contention now with zh-cp (and zh-c) is that it is not immediately clear by the context name that it should only be used where traditional and simplified overlap.  Indeed with zh-c, there was no zh-t or zh-s until earlier today.  My suggestion is to move or rename the template to zh-up (and zh-u for zh-c) to emphasize from the very template name that it should only be used when both traditional and simplified overlap. --BenjaminTsai Talk 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The concensus appears to be to just keep zh-c/cp/cpw and to leave a note to make sure people only use these templates for instances where simplified and traditional coincide.  I still feel 'u' would be more intuitive than 'c' however, as mentioned on my talk page, since "it's fairly straight forward process for a bot to detect violation on the uniformity law so I suppose it is not too important a point." --BenjaminTsai Talk 08:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to zh-sp and zh-tp 

message: Is there a reason why "Pinyin" is not capitalised? When it refers to Hanyu Pinyin, not just any phonetic alphabet, it should be capitalised. — Babelfisch 02:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not necessarily referring to Hanyu Pinyin, but rather to the generic family of extremely-closely-related transliteration methods known as pinyin (for example, there's also Tongyong Pinyin). —Lowellian (reply) 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pinyin" or "Pinyin" 

message: Quite by accident, while translating the template into Macedonian, I translated in on the oroginal (english) page. So I would like to ask an administrator to revert it for me. Sorry... --B. Jankuloski 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: English text is showing up in a strange font when this template is used in an article. Can this be fixed, as this template is written in very confusing computer language? Badagnani 06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font 

message: The Chinese font is now showing up strangely when using this template. Badagnani 02:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese font

message: Please de-italicize the pinyin. It makes the tone marks exceedingly hard to read and we do not generally italicize pinyin in templates. Badagnani 05:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But yet it isn't hard to read. You might want to check your display settings or monitor, since it looks clear to me on every CRT and LCD display I've seen. GraYoshi2x►talk 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-italicize