Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Get rid of fields under Japanese name

The current layout looks like this. It's bloated. Parameter bloat considered harmful. 

 Japanese name
 Kanji	{{{kanji}}}
 Kana	{{{kana}}}
 Hiragana	{{{hiragana}}}
 Kyūjitai	{{{kyujitai}}}
 Shinjitai	{{{shinjitai}}}
 Transcriptions
 - Romaji	{{{romaji}}}
 - Revised Hepburn	{{{revhep}}}
 - Traditional Hepburn	{{{tradhep}}}
 - Kunrei-shiki	{{{kunrei}}}
 - Nihon-shiki	{{{WikiProject Japan}}}

We don't need every field under the sun here. For example, the oft-used nihongo template only has English name, kanji, and romaji. No one ever uses multiple romanization fields, because that would be pointless. We can get rid of that show/hide control and the Transcriptions header row for a group of fields that are never going to be more than one. On top of that, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, we only use Revised Hepburn. Keep the romaji field (the one people actually use), and get rid of all the other romaji fields. Remove the show/hide control which adds to bloat and clutter, and requires unnecessary user interaction. I don't see the need for a hiragana parameter either when we already have a kana parameter. That just leads to unwanted parameter bloat. Arguably we could get rid of both hiragana and kana, but since we have a tabular structure, we can afford extra space.

Proposed new structure (version 1): 

 Japanese name
 Kanji	{{{kanji}}}
 Kana	{{{kana}}}
 Hiragana	{{{hiragana}}} <!-- deprecated -->
 Kyūjitai	{{{kyujitai}}}
 Shinjitai	{{{shinjitai}}}
 Romaji	{{{romaji}}} <!-- assumed to be Revised hepburn without stating so, per WP:MJ -->

Version 2. This would require a bot to convert hiragana fields to kana fields: 

 Japanese name
 Kanji	{{{kanji}}}
 Kana	{{{kana}}}
 Kyūjitai	{{{kyujitai}}}
 Shinjitai	{{{shinjitai}}}
 Romaji	{{{romaji}}}

For the set of parameters, I realize that the ver. 1 set and ver. 2 set both appeared in July 2007. Of course we want the newer style and template programming (except for the unnecessary transcription hiding), but revert to the more reasonable set of parameters.

Alternate Proposal (Version 0). This is a bare minimum effort approach to improving the Japanese name section. Deprecate multiple fields and disable transcription hiding for Japanese (what is being hidden takes up the same amount of screen real estate as the show/hide control itself). 

 Japanese name
 Kanji	{{{kanji}}}
 Kana	{{{kana}}}
 Hiragana	{{{hiragana}}} <!--deprecated. use kana instead. -->
 Kyūjitai	{{{kyujitai}}}
 Shinjitai	{{{shinjitai}}}
 Romaji	{{{romaji}}}<!--use Revised Hepburn romanization here. -->
 Revised Hepburn	{{{revhep}}} <!--deprecated. use romaji instead. -->
 Traditional Hepburn	{{{tradhep}}}<!--deprecated. use romaji instead. -->
 Kunrei-shiki	{{{kunrei}}}<!--deprecated. use romaji instead. -->
 Nihon-shiki	{{{WikiProject Japan}}}<!--deprecated. use romaji instead. -->

Aside: is there a way to annotate parameters as deprecated? If not, it would be a nice feature request to make. --Bxj (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That was too hard hitting as plenty of it is used and that MoS stated that there are exceptions. By default all romanizations and transcriptions are hidden, unless it's specified with a flag in the code per case basis. People should follow the MoS when applicable, but those are hardly deprecated. Anyway, put a comment at the documentation referring to the MoS. Cold Season (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There should be only one romaji field. You didn't touch on most of the reasons for applying the changes, however I do appreciate you expressing your suggestions. One problem with having multiple fields when one suffices is that it adds unnecessary clutter and complication for both the editor and reader. Modified Hepburn romanization can cover 99.99999999% of the cases for use in Infobox Chinese, however it should be possible to note exceptional cases with one romaji field even when there are needs to mention other romanizations. We don't need every field under the sun here. For example, the oft-used nihongo template only has English name, kanji, and romaji. No one ever uses multiple romanization fields, because that would be pointless. We can get rid of that show/hide control and the Transcriptions header row for a group of fields that are never going to be more than one. On top of that, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, we only use Revised Hepburn. Keep the romaji field (the one people actually use), and get rid of all the other romaji fields. Remove the show/hide control which adds to bloat and clutter, and requires unnecessary user interaction. I don't see the need for a hiragana parameter either when we already have a kana parameter. That just leads to unwanted parameter bloat. Arguably we could get rid of both hiragana and kana, but since we have a tabular structure, we can afford extra space. Please consider discussion before changes as a matter of practicality. --Bxj (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted it placed your changes in again. I should note that this template is in use on many pages and the statement: "If your edit causes unexpected problems, please undo it quickly, as this template may appear on a large number of pages." Thus, I was not wrong to undo it quickly, since your changes had affect on many inputted info. It is not up to you to decide what transcription or script gets used, what is deprecated, and whatever transcription should be unhid over others. Rather strange to state that "we can afford extra space", are you selective on what it applies to? If you seriously plan to defend your changes I or, better yet, you will notify the WikiProjects involved, as this widely-used template is watched by only a minor fraction of people, as this chunk of code removal is definitely not minor. Which I also rather find quite contradictory to what you are saying, since you didn't consider discussion before huge changes as as you didn't notify anyone also involved. I wonder why with such huge changes and 30 or less active watchers. Cold Season (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I placed a message to the talkpages of the first few of those involved projects by now. Cold Season (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Some obvious observations that I can make: "I see that you have reverted it again." Actually, there is no "again" on my part. Please don't mistake me for you. I only reverted your edit once, which you did so without any prior discussion (and adding something to the talk page, not waiting for a reply, and proceeding to make that edit on the same day doesn't count as prior discussion -- that's just insincere).
An idea is bots. We can fix the template usage as needed by tasking a bot to batch modify the parameters in the articles. In the multi-step changes that I propose, we're still working towards version 1 now. If you care for the reasonings behind this proposal or are otherwise interested, we could discuss bot application as the next logical step... --Bxj (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Some more replies to your comments:
Rather strange to state that "we can afford extra space", are you selective on what it applies to?
I am saying that the status quo (which you seem to prefer) is taking up wasted space, but we can afford to keep taking up that extra space, at least in version 1 as a means of compromise. I'm sure you understood the context in which I used this phrase since I stated it very clearly, however I'm no sure what you are objecting to here. If we were to actually touch upon the reasonings for the proposed cleanup for a second here, don't you think it's rather redundant for us to have BOTH kana and hiragana parameters? When would simply having kana not suffice? This clutter doesn't sound like a good idea.
If you seriously plan to defend your changes I or, better yet, you will notify the WikiProjects involved, as this widely-used template is watched by only a minor fraction of people, as this chunk of code removal is definitely not minor.
I guess I need to seriously defend if there are people who are seriously attacking, and extra seriously defend if there are people who are extra seriously attacking and so on... However, keep in mind that the status quo sucks, and we wouldn't have the status quo if it weren't just slipped into the template without proper deliberation. I gave more than a month for feedback, so that's not nothing. But yes, I am interested in hearing opinions from more than one other user.
Which I also rather find quite contradictory to what you are saying, since you didn't consider discussion before huge changes as as you didn't notify anyone also involved. I wonder why with such huge changes and 30 or less active watchers.
Again, you're just blocking something from your mind that's obvious, and I'm not impressed with that. The is the fact that I waited for more than a month after my edit proposal before proceeding, as you can see in this discussion section. Unlike your repetitive reverts, or the author who added the bloat in the first place, I've waited more than a month. Just saying, for the sake of perspective.--Bxj (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for your displease or frustration at my wording, no, I'm clear in mind. I don't agree with unhiding or removal of transcriptions. And what if the bot stumbles on several transcriptions? It's per case basis. --Cold Season (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no advantage to the changes, and great loss of flexibility with it. The fields are hidden. If you don't like it, they don't appear anyways. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this a template where there might be additional benefits to having extra Japanese fields for cross-culture items. Even if the fields are not used in Japan today, isn't the more parameters better? Pinyin and Jyutping covers 99.99% of the scenarios. But extra fields supporting that .001% make this template helpful. Benjwong (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
@65.94... Depends. Is this flexibility that is useful for any legitimate use cases? The hidden issue makes it a bad user experience. You have to click through to view just one additional line. The show/hide interface takes up additional line, thus not saving screen real estate, just requiring a click-through. @Benjwong if it requires a show/hide widget, then it's not that great, and it's stuff that could be said in "romaji=" anyway. E.g. "romaji=(Nihon-shiki) Kaibutu" although I can't really think of a common or uncommon reason why this would be needed. Unlike other languages, there is very little that could be lost by going with the standardized Modified Hepburn romanization. Heck, we even throw in kana / hiragana, which is more than the commonly used Template:Nihongo offers. --Bxj (talk)
I can see how the "Transcriptions [show/hide]" widget can come in handy. For example, for Hong Kong, we have:
   Transcriptions    [hide]
   Hakka
   - Romanization	Hiông-kóng
   Mandarin
   - Hanyu Pinyin	Xiānggǎng
   - Wade–Giles	Hsiang1-kang3
   - IPA	[ɕjáŋkàŋ]
   Min
   - Hokkien POJ	Hiong-kang
   Wu
   - Romanization	shian平kaon上
   Cantonese
   - Jyutping	Hoeng1gong2
   - IPA	[hœ̂ːŋkɔ̌ːŋ]
   - Yale Romanization	Hēunggóng
This makes sense for Chinese, since it's a very large and diverse country. However, let's consider Japan, to see if the same hammer is really appropriate for applying everywhere. How many ethnicities are there? One. How many governments are there? One. How many languages are there? One. (I'm simplifying here a bit. There is Ainu language, which has less than 15 people.) So, the same needs doesn't exist. To have a laundry list of parameters. Definitely not long enough to necessitate a show/hide widget either. And the fact that this is Template:Infobox Chinese makes parameter bloat for Japanese even more ridiculous. --Bxj (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is consistent, if someone wants to show a transcription and it's really needed (can't think why), they should use the flag for that option. Neither are they unhidden when it's just one filled in. And those parameters are precise, same could be said about removing pinyin and wade-giles and just put "Mandarin romanization" for simplification (since Romanji is Japanese romanization) and let people figure it out themselves. --Cold Season (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that we should take up article real estate with a show/hide control and hassle the user for one row of romanization "just because?" To quote what you said: "And those parameters are precise, same could be said about removing pinyin and wade-giles and just put "Mandarin romanization" for simplification" I think you missed the point here. Your devil's advocate example is problematic because there are two separate political entities called PRC and ROC, and they use different currencies, historical developments, Chinese characters, and romanization systems. Japan has one political entity. I'm amazed that you missed this argument that I mentioned in the very comment to which you responded to. --Bxj (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
No, not just because, I've given the reason... / I haven't missed it. This romanization use is not restricted to Japan, and other romanizations can and are commonly used in English, and can be romanized with different systems in different literature. Cold Season (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm speaking about Modified Hepburn romanization which is used exclusively for Japanese. The modification I am proposing is restricted to Japanese. Sorry if I confused you into thinking this was about changes that could affect documentation of Chinese words.--Bxj (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That narrows it down to the use of one target group on a widely-used template, against what is or are possibly commonly used romanizations. Cold Season (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Look at articles like Qiang an old weapon. It uses two romanizations that would have been considered to be deprecated according to Bxj. So is it really not in use? It looks in use to me?? Like someone researching from colonial documents for example will be using wade giles, yale without knowing it. Could it be that 1% is looking up traditional hepburn and not know it. Benjwong (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
You're really determined, aren't you? Look, you can throw examples to death. I've already explained what we could do with edge cases, which is to add additional explanation. This is pretty true with any template for anything anywhere ever. And I really don't see why we can't just have one romaji field for Infobox Chinese Japanese in the one specific example that you gave, Qiang. Theoretically, exceptions can exist where additional explanation is needed as a result of field consolidation, but Qiang is not that example. So, I don't get what the strong opposition is about yet.--Bxj (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Romanization is like a pronunciation guide in a dictionary. It's a nice-to-have, but you don't need multiple of them. Chinese is an exception because China+Taiwan is multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-political resulting in hard-core differences, requiring multiple romanizations. Japan is homogenous in comparison. They're apples and oranges.--Bxj (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A "pronunciation guide" that is written in Latin letters. Historical accepted spelling differ at times and there can also other preferences in spelling. Cold Season (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This wasn't a reply to your comment, but I'm sorry you didn't like my analogy. I thought it was reasonable, anyway. Wiktionary, for example, has IPA for pronunciation guide of English words. It doesn't incorporate various incompatible pronunciation guides used in various dictionaries, because that would be pointless. Do you even work on Japan-related articles much? Does this even matter to you? I don't get it. I'm going to look for input from editors who actually make major contributions to Japan-related topics. After all this section discussion is about Japanese. --Bxj (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You're on Template:Chinese, not Template:Nihongo. This template is to aid in including MORE information than the inline transcription templates provide. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. The Nihongo template is the most common language template used on Japanese articles, which is why I provided as an example. Wikipedia articles specializing in Japanese culture do not mention multiple romaji, and neither does Wiktionary, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/槍 However, as a middle ground I concede that a good example and/or argument for having multiple romaji fields can "theoretically" exist, I just haven't seen one yet. By the perceived rarity, handling those rare "theoretically existing" ones by tacking on additional notes in the article should suffice, while the general structure of the template could cater to the average use (i.e. by only having one romaji field). Note that multiple romaji fields were originally tacked on without any deliberation, so it shouldn't be surprising that a well-rounded consideration wasn't made. In addition, you shouldn't require users to show/hide transcriptions for languages that provide only one transcription. There is literally no benefit given to the user, while at the same time requiring the user to click and expand on something that did not have to be hidden in the first place. I'm looking at current Korean and future Japanese sections.--Bxj (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Bxj would do well to keep his comments more professional. Not doing so tends to engender acrimony, not cooperation. That being said, I support his proposal to remove the deprecated fields. The multiple romaji fields seem particularly unnecessary. Someone gave the example Qiang (spear) - the Japanese usage there is redundant given the wikilink to Yari.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died down. I haven't seen any good counter-arguments despite calling for them. Applying the recommended changes could be postponed as homework for the future, once we feel like being productive again. --Bxj (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

{{{i}}}

Quite a few articles were using {{{i}}} for any ol' IPA, often for Mandarin. Since it's just a historical leftover, I changed it to {{{ci}}} (parallel to {{{mi}}}), and also changed Burmese from {{{IPA}}} to {{{bi}}}. {{{i}}} is no longer supported; I'm switching the articles over now. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to have multiple fields for Mandarin IPA just as Cantonese IPA does. Shrigley (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Favored Romanization"

I disagree with the addition of a required "Favored Romanization" field so prominently in the infobox.[1] First of all, the capitalization implies that "Favored Romanization" is some type of romanization scheme that we can use on all Chinese characters, when it is not. AlanbirdVIEW added this for Jeremy Lin, who apparently uses some ad-hoc romanization for his Chinese name. He asserts that "Most of time, romanized names differ from their original pinyin or WG or Jyutping", but in my experience, Lin is the exception rather than the rule. If the subject of an article "favors" some arbitrary romanization other than the overwhelmingly common international standard or the old common standard, then that romanization already appears prominently in the title and article. (It could also be entered in the "title" parameter of this infobox) This is a infobox for Chinese-language terms — not English — and for the Chinese characters' clearly defined, consistent, and duplicatable romanization systems. It does not usually serve as an infobox for the subjects, which are {{Infobox Person}}, etc. Shrigley (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I, myself, have added this "Favored Romanization" with the all critical reasons for it:
  1. Better connection between original Chinese name and English used by such person
  2. Among all types of phonetic systems (Mandarin, Cantonese, Min,...) pronouced,a highlighted "Favored Romanization" (not sure if use this title) give the clear idea which type of romanization is selected and used formally in his/her daily life
  3. The function of the Infobox Chinese is mainly for Western readers to gain deeper meaning of Chinese, in conjunction of such written form in English, I think this is a nice and the best way to do so
  4. Put respect and accuracy to the persons and the articles: * Such as: Jeremy Lin (Shu-How) 林書豪 using "How" in lieu of "Hao", Chien-Ming Wang 王建民 replaces "Min" with "Ming"...and many you can tell as well, some of them use alternative words for original ones (the rules, the standards), but still all of them are recognizable and fully legal.
  5. Add it only if you need it: Since this additive function will appear only if you make this newly-defined {{{e}}} active by adding it with text. This means one more option available without making structural damage!
My final suggestions are:
  • Leave this [Favored Romanization] alive and ask for more talks
  • The title, for not to confuse, is so welcome to change as another more suitable one,
such as: [Favored romanization], [Favored in English], [Personal romanized],...
  • No hard feeling, revision/removal are expected, all of us are committed to a better Wikiplace, aren't we?
Thanks for your dedication and time!! I like the way YOU are ^^
alanbird (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your points,
  1. If a person uses some nonstandard romanization for their Chinese name in English, then it will already appear, repeatedly, in the title and text of the English-language article. The purpose of the {{Chinese}} template is to render a Chinese-language term, which means Chinese characters and some auxiliary systems to aid in pronunciation. The purpose of this template is not to show some person's English-language name, which is already accomplished with {{Infobox Person}} and other more appropriate templates.
  2. See above. We don't need to "give the clear idea which type of romanization is... used formally in his/her daily life" because any romanization that the person uses will appear in the title and repeatedly in the article text.
  3. It doesn't help anyone to get a "deeper meaning of Chinese" to promote arbitrary transcriptions to the level of well-known and standardized ones. With some study, anyone can learn how to pronounce "Shūháo", but "Shu-How" is a complete black box.
  4. See above.
  5. You didn't make the "e" option "add it only if you need it". The articles that I pointed out, such as tofu and Yellow River output "Favored Romanization: {{{e}}}" even though there was no change to those articles since your edit.
Please read {{Intricate template}}, which appears on the main template page. This template affects a large number of pages, and it caused unexpected problems, so you should be undoing it, conducting tests, and asking for help instead of fighting to keep this controversial change. Shrigley (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
User:ASDFGH has hidden the option where it is not used, which is progress. However, I am not convinced that we need this option at all. You are mistaken that Cantonese, Min, etc. cannot appear prominently with the current template. The "showflags" option allows you to put established romanizations on top: see how the infobox on Guangdong elevates Jyutping, Cantonese Yale, and pinyin. This is about adding English language renderings, not Chinese romanization to a Chinese language template. Shrigley (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive explanation and examples given herein!
Before make it concluded, I'd like to stress the following:
  • I only made one-time revision [18:47 17 February 2012] (51,647 bytes)

    It's my first time & only revision I've ever made, the rest of followed-by revisions were actually only "undo" from your reverts. Before submitting it, I've done all necessary tests and checks for each alternations. I found nothing to do with the conflict you mentioned above so-called "Favored Romanization: {{{e}}}"

  • However, I DID observed a couple of similar situations occurred on Tofu, this Template:Infobox Chinese page while User:ASDFGH were doing continuous updates afterwords; but returned normal later.
  • I'd believe neither ASDFGH nor myself screwed it up, instead, a temporary inconsistency between template database change (it happened before) caused this issue, I guessed.
  • Understood all your points, but I do believe, on the other hand, the way I created is acceptable and complied with all wiki standards and guidelines.
  • I DID read and understand the "showflags" function as an alternative to so, but I had strong belief that such personal used romanization shall be classified as a unique field as well
Since no further users have given their comments, while the current hidden option, harmless revision has made (thanks to ASDFGH), I think it's better to keep it there and stay where we are unless more ideas to come.

alanbird (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT TALKS!

Unfortunately, Shrigley, you DID reverted it into a negative term "nonstandard romanization" by your own will/without further notice/compromise. Can you image that how bad it looks like? (see pic)

Why "nonstandard" has to be associated with Jeremy Shu-How Lin 林書豪? He has nothing to do with your so-called "nonstandard romanization"!! "Shu-How" has been part ot Lin's full legal name in the U.S. as long as he was born to honoring God! It is not consistent wtih standard romanied systems, while pinyin/Wade–Giles' spell "Shu-Hao", but doesn't mean it has to be entitled "nonstandard"!!

To better settle down:

  • I have switched back the original term I first uesd, but de-capitalized as "favored romanization", which I agree with you to avoid any mislead. And it is the only one I will accept before further agreement.
  • "favored romanization" is re-linked to Romanization of Chinese's sub title: Other transcriptions, and I may add more content on it to approve these personal/custom needs.
  • Some other alternative terms, such as: personal romanization, custom romanization, personal romanized use... I'd consider more suitable to replace with if more people come for the discussion.
  • I will invite others to talk and make it done! Before this, no one ought to do any further revision since this added {{e}} parameter has not harmed to or changed Infobox Chinese template's versatility/flexibility or affect to other linked articles. (actually it gives more clear idea how "standard" unable to apply to all)
  • Respect others and self!

alanbird (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Shrigley on all the points. Alan you seem to have a lot to learn about what Wikipedia is and isn't. (And you have to earn your respect.) Your edits to Jeremy Lin has turned in into WP:FAN. "Favored romanization" has no place in Wikipedia, especially the fact that one who is given at birth is no romanization at all. HkCaGu (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Tang reconstruction"

Readers may have noticed User:Dcattell's recent adds of "Tang reconstruction" across various China articles, and I'd like to give him a chance to explain his reasoning and the sources he is relying on. I am highly suspicious of these changes, and I think I know which sources he's citing, but I think he deserves a shot at explaining his methodology for distinguishing Tang reconstructions from EMC. I of course WP:Assume good faith here.

Personally, I think the distinction between Tang and EMC is artificial in most reconstructions, as there's so little data to rely on in the first place. I almost never give even Early Middle Chinese and Late Middle Chinese distinctions here on Wikipedia, since the most obvious differences are simply the merger of the zhuang 莊 and zhang 章 initial series into the zhao 照 and the labiodental developments in the 3rd division hekou rhymes. There are more distinctions, to be sure, but they're not mentioned nearly as often, as far as I've ever learned.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I wanted to note this. Whether it this distinction will be kept or not, 'Tang reconstruction' does not appear under the 'Middle Chinese' section as seen here [2] and should be corrected. --Cold Season (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The basic problem which I think needs addressing is that according to our (that is, en.Wikipedia's) article Middle Chinese:
Middle Chinese can be divided into an early period, generally called Early Middle Chinese (EMC, c. 5th–7th century AD), and a later period, Late Middle Chinese (LMC, c. 10th–12th century AD). EMC is usually connected with the Sui dynasty and early Tang dynasty rime dictionaries, especially the Qieyun (601 AD), while LMC is usually connected with Song dynasty rime tables, especially the Yunjing (c. 1150 AD).
This leaves a major gap from 601 AD to 1150 AD (basically covering almost the entirety of the Tang dynasty and its immediate aftermath). This gap is not resolved by just calling reconstructions "Middle Chinese", because we have three categories: EMC, LMC, and "Middle Chinese" -- but "Middle Chinese" in this case can refer to EMC, LMC, and the gap in between, a rather ambiguous situation. Of course, maybe I give to much weight to consistency on Wikipedia, but there does not seem to be a consistency between sources on the definition of "Middle Chinese" is problematic. For example, I believe that Karlgren would considered what we are calling "EMC" here to be part of "Ancient Chinese", and "Middle Chinese" to only properly begin with the Song rhyme tables. "Tang reconstruction" as a category may well not be the best solution, but would fill a gap between "EMC" and "LMC" in terms of chronology, although not necessarily of much phonological value. I think the big phonological issue here is the major change in terms of distinctions based upon syllabic medial glides and final consonants versus the phonology of tones in the modern sense. Although the actual time and geographic framework of this seems to be currently rather uncertain, using "Middle Chinese" to cover both the former and the latter phonological systems under one umbrella (and then to label one "EMC" and one "LMC" with a big gap in the middle) seems especially problematic. I think a general solution might be found with a bit of work, for example by clear reference citations in relevant articles, for example Middle Chinese, Mandarin Chinese#Old Mandarin, and so on (maybe Historical Chinese phonology best to start with?), and then making the template categories consistent with whatever terminology this process supports. Dcattell (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd advise against necessarily looking at what Wikipedia currently has for guidance on these matters, as it can be misleading, especially where articles aren't fully fleshed out yet (as is the case in a number of Chinese historical phonology articles). EMC is basically a term that encompasses Qieyun-Guangyun Middle Chinese, which covers just about all of the Tang. LMC is basically rhyme table (Yunjing, etc.) Chinese, which is Late Tang and Song. Baxter (1992) 1.2.5 gives a brief synopsis and is pretty tame. Remember, descriptions of EMC as 5th–7th century AD and LMC as 10th–12th century AD are not saying that the 7th-10th centuries were unknown, they are simply describing the general time periods where differences are apparent. The distinction of Middle Chinese into only two parts (an overly simplistic view that was basically introduced by Karlgren's groundbreaking but flawed work) is extremely problematic in practice – it persists just because it makes things easier to think about.
Your term "Tang reconstruction" is embraced in the term EMC for non-technical purposes (a.k.a. Wikipedia). A separate designation is not needed and would simply clutter things up; additionally, current scholarship sticks to the previously mentioned terms. If anything needs to be changed, it is the time references in the Middle Chinese article, which, as we have seen, are currently misleading lay readers.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, often less is more: just adding another category to the template is not per se helpful, and indeed may increase the cruft/clutter. The question of chronological categories from what I can tell remains open: do they have merit or not? Avoiding "what Wikipedia currently has for guidance on these matters, as it can be misleading" seems to be a major problem here, one which I have perhaps been doing. In regard to, "the time references in the Middle Chinese article, which, as we have seen, are currently misleading lay readers", I'm sorry that this would take some time for me to figure out on my own; but, which time references seem to be misleading lay readers? Dynastic? Common Era? All? How are they misleading? Is it because there was a continuum of phonological processes punctuated by a few surviving rhyme books, inconveniently located in terms of other timelines? Dcattell (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As White whirlwind says, EMC essentially designates the system of the Qieyun dictionary and its redactions, while LMC refers to the system of rhyme tables like the Yunjing. As you suggest, the gaps in the periodization are gaps between the materials available to us. Chinese is obviously not like say Greek where you have a long continuous record of alphabetic writing with spellings varying as pronunciations gradually evolve, and division of that continuity into periods is somewhat arbitrary. Between these comprehensive descriptions of Chinese pronunciation, there is only fragmentary evidence (foreign transcriptions, rhyming practice, etc).
Both of these systems seem to be artificial constructs rather than descriptions of the speech of some community. Karlgren thought the Qieyun (EMC) reflected a Tang standard, but it is now believed to reflect a compromise between northern and southern practice in reading the classics in the late Northern and Southern dynasties. Its distinctions were doubtless real, but not all made by any single speaker. The rhyme table system (LMC) reflects sound change, but also the Qieyun tradition, and it's difficult to disentangle the two.
There are several romanizations of what we call EMC, and this "Tang reconstruction" seems to be one of them. Despite the superficial differences, they all reflect the same data. "Ljɨ Bɐk" looks very different from "Lǐ Bhæk", but they're different spellings for the same pronunciations of the characters 李白 given non-alphabetically in the Qieyun. The "Tang reconstruction" seems to use the same diacritics as modern pinyin for the rising and departing tones, and "bh" etc for voiced initials, reserving "b" for unaspirated voiceless initials (as modern pinyin does), and there are different notations for the vowels. That's perfectly reasonable, but a surface difference only. "Tang" is a bit of a misnomer in light of the current view of the Qieyun system, though it's undoubtedly close.
For the same reason, the |mc=, |emc= and |lmc= fields ought to state which of the many transcriptions they're using. Kanguole 09:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the linguistic reconstruction of the historical phonology of Chinese language, and only have limited reference resources in this regard. However, even if I were a world class expert with a huge collection of specialized journals, I doubt that the EMC-LMC distinction is particular useful for this template, or Wikipedia in general. In fact, the EMC and LMC terms do not appear as major distinctions in the references which I have consulted. The distinction between the Qieyun and the Yunjing (and Qiyinlue) seems to be one largely of format (rhyme table) and better presentation of information based on a more sophisticated understanding of linguistics (although acknowledging the existence of an important dialectical shift occurring in late Tang): however, linguistic study of these works does not seem to have given rise to any more than minor dialectical differences as indicated by those two sources. I have not seen a reference source with a thorough presentation of EMC or LMC reconstructions, only Middle Chinese, with a few notes on minor changes or variants within Middle Chinese . The term "Tang reconstruction" can be better defended: it seems that the Qieyun is "the primary source for Middle Chinese" (Jerry Norman:1988, Chinese, page 41). The oldest surviving copy of Qieyun seems to be Wang Renxu's, from the Tang dynasty. Thus, to put it perhaps over-simplistically, Middle Chinese = Qieyun = "Tang reconstruction". Thus, it would seem that the template code for "Tang reconstruction" is redundant (though accurate enough). However, the equation that Middle Chinese = EMC + LMC seems to be misleading, and poorly and vaguely defined. So, I'm eliminating the "trc" code, and may address the issues raised here through fixes in the Middle Chinese article. Dcattell (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking at Norman, the second half of page 24 relates the current consensus I mentioned, with more detail on the next page. Karlgren's view that the Qieyun describes the standard speech of the Sui-Tang capital Chang'an, which can therefore be reconstructed from it, is no longer seriously entertained. Not only is it not Tang (or Sui), but it doesn't describe a single variety to be reconstructed. Hence Baxter insists that his transcription for MC is not a reconstruction but a convenient notation for the Qieyun categories. Kanguole 00:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You're correct in saying that Early Middle Chinese is probably more accurately termed "Tang Dynasty Chinese", but unfortunately that isn't the common practice in the reliable sources. And, again, you have be careful with just going off of the Qieyun and Wang Renxu Tang dynasty connection – the text of the Qieyun has only partially survived, and 99% of the citing of it is actually just the later Guangyun, and the earliest extant edition of that dates to about 1000. The whole business is a mess. As far as I know, Stimson and Pulleyblank are the only scholars that would dare to explicitly use the term "Tang Chinese" in their reconstructions. I think User:Kanguole's idea is a nice one – maybe fields could be added under Middle Chinese for particular reconstructions? The main ones in use in English sources are, as far as I know, Baxter, Li Fang-kuei, and Pulleyblank. In Chinese I think it's mostly still Wang Li but increasingly Baxter and Zhengzhang Shangfang.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Note that Pulleyblank asserts that LMC represents the standard variety of the High Tang. He has produced a dictionary of both EMC and LMC transcriptions, which is as usual for his work highly influential but not widely accepted in detail, so not very suitable for our purposes. Kanguole 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese

There have been three scripts used in Vietnam:

  • Chinese characters (chữ Hán or Hán tự), recording Literary Chinese (chữ nho) for administration scholarship and formal literature up to the early 20th century.
  • a script (chữ nôm) combining Chinese characters and local creations, used for folk literature in Vietnamese up to the early 20th century.
  • the Vietnamese alphabet (quốc ngữ), the standard script for Vietnamese since the early 20th century, and now used for everything.

So why do we have five fields? In particular, |vie= and |qn= seem to be the same thing, and |hn= (Hán–Nôm) seems to be a conflation of |hantu= and |chunom=. Kanguole 00:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion of |hantu=, which is used on dozens of articles (though maybe it should have been called chuhan). I think the parameter that should be removed is |hn=, which mixes two scripts, losing information. Further, it's inappropriate to apply {{vi-nom}}, described as "for the markup of text written in Nôm, a Chinese-style script formerly used to write Vietnamese", to names taken from texts written (in Vietnam) in Literary Chinese. Kanguole 09:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest unifying |vie= and |qn=, and replacing |hantu= and |hn= with |chuhan=, for chữ Hán. Most of the entries currently labelled with |hn= are actually chữ Hán, being the names of figures known from histories written (in Vietnam) in Chinese. Kanguole 01:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly as Kanguole. (chữ Hán is also the common term on vi.wp and used in Lonely Planet's Vietnam guidebook). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Chữ Hán is more common than Hán tự, but the issue with |hn= is that Han and Nom are two scripts for different languages. Labelling names with the umbrella term (|hn=) conflates the two scripts, and gives readers less information than specifying the script with |chuhan= or |chunom=. Kanguole 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Like IIO, I'm glad we finally got rid of the pseudo-Vietnamese expression Hán tự. In Vietnamese, the words commonly used to describe these characters are chữ Hán (Literary Chinese) and chữ Nôm (Vietnamese written in Chinese-style script). Historians take the names they use from Chinese-language court records, but ordinary Vietnamese would have learned about historic figures from Nom documents. Proper names are generally written using the same characters in Chinese as in Nom, although their readings are usually different. So what we want a descriptor that means, "Chinese characters as used in Vietnam". The officials and the scholars who deal most directly with these matters at the Han-Nom Institute and elsewhere have created the helpful term "Han-Nom", which means exactly this. Since replacing Hán-Nôm with chữ Hán has been proposed, let's Google up some results and compare the hit counts:

Aside from being less common in English, I don't see any real-world usage for "chu Han" in the sense that it is being used in the template, i.e. as a term specific to Chinese used in Vietnam. I don't think we want to use terminology which implies that Chinese used in Vietnam was different than Chinese used elsewhere. Kauffner (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We now need other editors' input - the above results show that more Vietnamese articles discuss "Han and Nom" together than directly mention "Han script" on three Vietnamese websites. Searching "hanzi" might get more hits in a Chinese website than "jiantizi" or "fantizi" indiviually, so what? This search and these results have no bearing whatsover on Kanguole's point. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You realize that all three of the sites I searched are English-language news sites? On Highbeam, "chu Han" has been used once, and in that case it is treated as a non-English term and translated. "Han-Nom" appears five times (three of these results look relevant). Kauffner (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any citations for these Nôm histories you mention? In any case, these names come from documents written in Literary Chinese, and should be distinguished from forms created for Vietnamese written in Nôm, which often involve different word order and additional characters to denote native Vietnamese words. It may be common journalistic practice to conflate the two scripts (Hán and Nôm), but no scholar would speak of a particular document or phrase as being written in Hán-Nôm. Kanguole 14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
How many times do I have to explain what Han-Nom is? No, it is not a conflation of two scripts. It is a character set that was used to write both Chinese and Vietnamese. Surely you realize that Vietnamese have always spoken Vietnamese. Even under the kings that were opposed to Nom, someone would do an unofficial vernacular translation when a document was of public interest. Tu Duc and other kings promoted Nom, so there was serious Nom writing and patriotic history in his time. History played a major role in popular culture as well. The hát bội plays all had historical themes, and such themes are also common in cải lương. The Saigon library has a large set of such plays transcribed into Nom. It's at least ten volumes and fills up an entire shelf.
Who would use the phrase chữ Hán in English? It comes up occasionally in the context of explaining Vietnamese terminology, but otherwise writers refer to it as "Chinese" or "Classical Chinese." Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize this discussion was going on or I'd have chimed in earlier. I agree with User:Kanguole's general suggestion. Han Nôm seems to be a new term that describes a body of literature but is now also being used to designate the Sino-Viet script (chữ nôm), as User:Kauffner's Google searches make clear, though Google searches are not definitive in determining how something should be termed without consulting scholarly sources (something Kauffner seems to rarely do, though that probably stems from lack of access or training or some other reason). This seems to be the modern usage (my copy of the Hán-Việt Từ Điển 漢越辭典 dating from the 1960s uses từ "character" throughout the introduction instead).
I see Quốc Ngữ, Chữ Nôm, and "literal meaning" covering the vast majority of the infobox's Vietnamese needs, with a few rare occasions where a chữ Hán (Chinese) term may contain a Chinese gloss for some native Vietnamese term in the Nôm.
P.S.: Chữ Nôm aka Hán Nôm is a "conflation" of two scripts only in the sense that "Japanese" is a conflation of two scripts (kanji and kana) – it's definitely a well-developed writing system, more so than modern written Cantonese or similar.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:White whirlwind, you say "Hán Nôm seems to be a new term that describes" do you have any specific academic source in mind, because to my understanding the term still means "Hán and Nôm" in both Vietnamese and English.

Noboyuki, Matsuo, "The Han Nom Institute, Hanoi", Asian Research Trends: a Humanities and Social Science Review Yunesuko Higashi Ajia Bunka Kenkyū Sentā (Tokyo, Japan), 1998, No. 8-10, p. 140, "Most of the source materials from premodern Vietnam are written in Chinese, obviously using Chinese characters; however, a portion of the literary genre is written in Vietnamese, using chu nom. Therefore, han nom is the term designating the whole body of premodern written materials."

Eva Hung, Judy Wakabayashi Asian translation traditions 2005 Page 174 "A large portion of the lexicon of the Vietnamese language in recent centuries derives from Hán. Consequently, there is a significant orthographic overlap between Hán and Nôm, which is to say that many characters are used in both with the same meaning. This is primarily a lexical, not a syntactic, phenomenon, although Hán grammar did influence Nôm prose to a relatively significant extent (Xtankevich 1986)"

As far as vi:Hán Nôm, Kauffner states on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner that the article was placed on vi.wp at his doing as a translation of his own understanding, so shouldn't be given any weight.

As far as usage by PRC Vietnamologists English and Vietnamese usage may be different from Chinese usage. I find it interesting that zh:汉喃 claims that: 汉喃可以指：= Hán Nôm can have 2 meanings: 1. 汉字和喃字，泛指越南各种古代文献（包括汉文文献、喃文文献）。如：「漢喃古籍」，指所有越南古典书籍。= Hán and Nôm as 2 systems 2. 越南的傳統文书系统之一，由喃字与汉字混合书写，亦称为喃文。（本条将详述）= texts in mish-mash of Hán and Nôm

The phenomenon of the mish-mash texts (which I admit I'm only familiar with as Nôm glosses on Hán medicine texts, much as Arabic and Latin glosses on Greek medical texts) is something that warrants further documentation in Vietnamese writing system article copy but I can't see how will impact this template. For the purposes of a template Hán and Nôm are distinct, but I'm struggling to think of many articles that would ever need Nôm.

Perhaps Dục Đức would be a place to start. Does it make sense to have three infoxes, and does it make sense to have Quốc ngữ：Nguyễn Phúc Ưng Chân, Hán-Nôm：阮福膺禛 (why is this Hán-Nôm? these are all Hán characters)? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My point was that the term's "newness" seemed obvious, as plenty of sources make clear that Chữ Nôm need not solely refer to Vietnamese-created characters. For example, my copy of the very nice Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn 字典𡨸喃摘引 ("Dictionary of Nôm Characters with Excerpts [Quotations]"), published in 2009, contains "Chữ Nôm" – that is, both Chinese and Vietnamese characters. After opening to a random page I see měi/gāo, mở 羙 (an older character which writes both měi 美 and gāo 羔) right next to mở 𨷑 (to open).  White Whirlwind  咨  05:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think any character with a Nom reading can reasonably be described as a Nom character. There is a list of the most commonly used Nom characters at Han-Nom#Most_common_characters. At least half of these are also standard Chinese characters. Kauffner (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think not. The usage seems to clearly be that a Nôm character - i.e. a chữ nôm - is one that was created in Vietnam to write a Việt morpheme. Hence, using my above example, měi/gāo, mở 羙 is NOT a Nôm character, while mở 𨷑 most definitely is. Whether or not a Chinese character has a Vietnamese - i.e. Nôm - reading is not relevant, as essentially ALL Chinese characters have such readings. The distinction is akin to "normal" kanji and Kokuji 国字 - those characters which were created in Japan for native Japanese morphemes.  White Whirlwind  咨  08:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The descriptor "Hán-Nôm" has been on the template for years, without controversy before this discussion. I wrote the article Han-Nom because I thought this descriptor needed an appropriate place to link to. From the post above, it is clear that proposal to link the descriptor to something else is motivated by the fact that I wrote this article. If you don't think Han-Nom is a legitimate word, here it is in Langenscheidt: " "Hán-Nôm Sino-Vietnamese characters." The Noboyuki quote IIO gives above describes Han-Nom as a "term," and explains its origin. The reason for using language temples is so that the opening paragraph of an article can be in uncluttered, readable, Latin script. There is a guideline about this in MOS:KO. Vietnam hasn't used Chinese script in several generations, so putting Chinese characters in the opening, as IIO suggests, make even less sense than in the case of Korea. In Duc Duc's case, the result would be two names in Chinese script in the opening sentence.
  • "Han-Nom" is a term used in the Vietnam-based English-language press and by the archivists and the Vietnam National Library and Han-Nom Institute. No one has come up with English-language RS examples of "Chu Han."
  • In Vietnamese, chữ Hán means simply Classical Chinese. Usage in sense it is given in this template is a Wikipedia neologism.
  • To use a different word for Chinese in Vietnam misleads the reader into thinking that this was a language or dialect distinct from other forms of Chinese.
  • The term "Han-Nom" creates ambiguity that is appropriate in many situations. The names of Vietnamese historical figures are typically taken from Chinese-language official records, and thus Han. But it is misleading to suggest that they would be given differently in Nom. Kauffner (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer the "Why is this Hán-Nôm?" question, there is actually an official list of Han-Nom characters. You can access it at the Nom Foundation site. Click on "Han-Nom", input the character, and see if it is in the database. The characters in this database correspond those listed in the Han-Nom Coded Character Repertoire, which is Vietnam's Unicode proposal. Kauffner (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Han-Nom article presents it as a single script, but both the two references attached to that sentence make clear that it is an umbrella term for materials in two scripts, Han and Nom. Han, for writing Literary Chinese, and used the same characters to write it as everyone else did. Nom, for writing Vietnamese, was what required all the Vietnamese-specific characters, and that is why the Han-Nom article goes over the same ground as the chữ Nôm article. Scholarly treatments do not discuss the characters in isolation, they treat them in the context of the system for writing Vietnamese for which they were created, i.e. the chữ Nôm script.

I think you're also mistaken in assuming that patriotic histories would be written in Vietnamese. Until the early 20th century, it was quite natural for literate Vietnamese to express their patriotism, like other serious things, in Literary Chinese (from Mountains and rivers of the Southern country to History of the Loss of Vietnam. The history compiled during Tu Duc's reign was likewise in Chinese.

But I think I see convergence in your recent comments. We agree that these historical names are Han, and that it is ambiguous to use the label "Han-Nom" both for these Han names and for Nom terms (e.g. as in chopsticks). It seems we disagree only on whether this ambiguity is desirable. Kanguole 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I found a Nom history: Đại Việt sử ký tiệp lục tổng tự. I translate the description as follows: "Written during the Tay Son dynasty, many pages of this book are torn, affecting both the content and the title. It gives the history of Vietnam, beginning with the Hong Bang dynasty and continuing up to the end of the Le dynasty. The original is in chữ Hán. Each paragraph or sentence has been translated into chữ Nôm." Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this in stages. Perhaps we can first work out how many labels we need, and discuss what they should be called afterwards. It seems we need three: for Han, for Nom and for the alphabet. Though most of these names are Han, there are also a few terms that originated in Nom, and it seems a worthwhile distinction for an encyclopedia to make. Kanguole 23:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So one Nom history is not enough to convince you? Well, here's some more:
I searched only for Nom texts dealing with history that have been digitized, so it is safe to say that this is very far from a complete list of what was published. If a name was given the same way in Han as in Nom, "Han-Nom" is the logical descriptor to use. As I have shown, there was a significant volume of historical writing in Nom. So it is unlikely that any significant figure in Vietnamese history has appeared only in Han and never in Nom. Kauffner (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify: are you arguing that names that originated from Han texts should be labelled in the same way as terms that were created for Nom? Kanguole 00:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If the form is found only in Nom, then we can use the "Chữ Nôm" descriptor. If the original is Han, but we want to convey the idea that is was, or probably was, used in Nom as well, then "Hán-Nôm". If it was used only in Han, and never in Nom, it's not a Vietnamese name. Kauffner (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
So we agree that names that originated from Han texts should be distinguished from those created for Nom, and that the latter should be labelled "Chữ Nôm". As for the former, you suggest that because Han forms could also be used in Nom texts they should be labelled "Hán-Nôm", but this is a novel usage. As the references in the Han-Nom article make clear, this is an umbrella term for materials in either of two scripts, Han and Nom. It is particularly incongruous to label Han names with a link to an article that is almost entirely about Nom. Kanguole 10:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest that qn ("Vietnamese alphabet") is redundant with vie ("Vietnamese"), and that chuhan (Chữ Hán) is redundant with hn ("Hán-Nôm"). I think I've shown the "chữ Hán" is not nearly as common in English as "Hán-Nôm". So the next step would be to remove qn and chuhan from the template. Kauffner (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree with eliminating |qn=, and that we only need one parameter for Han names. The problem with using "Hán-Nôm" for Han names is that no reliable sources use it that way; it's used as an umbrella term for materials in either of two scripts, Han or Nom. Moreover the Han-Nom article you're proposing to link to is almost entirely about Nom. Kanguole 20:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
What reliable source uses "chu Han" in English? I looked through some GBook results. The only context I found in which it arises is to explain usage in Vietnamese. I think the descriptor chunom ("Chữ Nôm") needs to go as well. It is used on very few articles at the moment. What does it really mean? If the Vietnamese name is different than the Chinese name, we call it "Chữ Nôm". If it is the same, we called it "chữ Hán" or "Hán-Nôm." This is not adding any value, only increasing the number of unfamiliar words that we are expecting a reader to learn. As for the Han-Nom article, it explains right at the top what Han-Nom is, what Han is, and what Nom is. That's what someone clicking on the descriptor needs to know, and I don't think any other article does that. So it serves its purpose. Kauffner (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that "Han-Nom" is the WP:OR invention of a one editor who has created a duplicate article about a topic which doesn't exist in a topic area he doesn't understand. The amount of bytes expended on this is already highly disruptive.

  • English sources use Hán for Hán
  • English sources use Nôm for Nôm

The chữ can be omitted as usual in English texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Hán-Nôm" descriptor was quietly sitting in the template for years. The reason it's an issue now is because I have Wiki-stalker who can disrupt any discussion to complain about whatever it is I happen to be doing. Criticism of the article is gratuitous here since the descriptors can be discussed on their own merits. As far as the search above goes, I count two results on the first page that actually refer to Han-Nom. Five others are for "Han dynasty", and another one is just citing Vietnamese usage. Kauffner (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner, the reason people check in on your edits is self-explanatory.
  • You say "the "Hán-Nôm" descriptor was quietly sitting in the template for years." why do I not recall seeing it display in any article until your recent edits? Can you please give edit history of an article showing it displaying prior to recent edits.
  • Please give an example of an article which requires different entries for Hán and Nôm. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Per WP:BRD reverting edit from white-space: nowrap" {!} [Han-Nom|Hán-Nôm] back to pipeline to [Hán tự|Hán-Nôm] (which redirects to History of writing in Vietnam). In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're bringing back Han tu? This is just WP:POINT. After all, you proposed moving it. Kauffner (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The idea of WP:BRD is that editors get to revert, then there's a discussion. you're now at 1RR. It doesn't matter whether the Hán tự article is titled Hán or a move (which you supported) renamed to History of writing in Vietnam, it is still the same article about Hán tự or Hán. The way you have changed the pipelink on the template means that somewhere up to 1,500-2,000 articles are now showing "Hán" in the box, but actually linking to the article on Nôm. Why is it so important for you to pipelink readers from the correct article to the wrong article that it justifies edit-warring? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see how the Han tu/chu Nho/History of writing in Vietnam moves can be considered my fault. In any case, it doesn't matter who moved it or why. The current title makes it unsuitable for use with the template. The the Han-Nom descriptor should link to Han-Nom is an obvious solution, the way it is done with every other descriptor on the template. Kauffner (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner, back from 72-hour block for edit warring on Han-Nom, and immediately edit warring related to redirect to Han-Nom on template. The template link Hán-Nôm has always directed to the article Hán tự, you have changed it to redirect to your duplicate article which no longer exists and was part merged into Hán and part into Nôm. Whom is redirecting readers to the wrong article serving? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Technical help needed

On the article Lý Cao Tông why does Chữ Hán: 李高宗 redirect to en.wiktionary not to en.wikipedia Chữ Hán? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some additions

First, thanks for a lovely and pretty comprehensive infobox. It's a real improvement over what we used to have and I think it's helped clean up several real messes.

Second, it is still missing two fairly important fields:
(1) Old Chinese (Although you may wish to phrase it as "Reconstructed Old Chinese" or "Old Chinese<br/>(Reconstructed)" in case people don't know what the * means. It's possible you may want to build in a citation to this or its update since it's the most authoritative, thorough, and accessible version I've seen so far on the nets.)
(2) Idiosyncratic (I think the best out of alternatives like "Traditional", "19th Century", etc...)
Right now there is no place in this infobox for, e.g., the Yangtze article to list "Yang-tse" (the standard but idiosyncratic 19th century name) or "Krong" (its reconstructed Old Chinese name, per Baxter & co.) I understand there may be scholarly objections to particular reconstructions, but I don't think that can't be dealt with on those particular pages.

Third, I haven't seen this part in action but it's hard for me to understand why there is a "Wu" section. The Wu languages are so mutually unintelligible that it really should just read "Suzhounese" (the prestige dialect of Wu and what was presumably meant since Shanghainese has its own category already). — LlywelynII 13:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fourth: This is bizarre... apparently, even Middle Chinese is only supported for the first entry. Obviously anyone in ancient China has at least three sets of names even if they didn't get postmortem honorifics, and that needs to be fixed.
If you could be so kind, once that support is added / restored, please add
|mc2 = Swon Mju<ref name="BaxSag"/>
|mc3 = Trjang-khjæng<ref name="BaxSag"/>
to the infobox at Sun Tzu. Currently, including them doesn't work at all; it even breaks the infobox's syntax so that the romanizations fail to collapse. — LlywelynII 14:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese/Archive_2&oldid=1134280899"