Template talk:User zh-1
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changes
[edit]I undid the changes because 1) the template should have both traditional and simplified characters, 22) the original formulation is more formal and in line with other language templates. Hekerui (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- My rationales for changing are 1) The new version is more compact and easier to understand (一目了然). 2) The original version is not more formal; it is verbose and reads uncomfortable from a native speaker's point of view, besides grammatically it belongs to a type called "latinised Chinese", which is the one used in translating texts from foreign languages, not the format used by ordinary native speakers. 3) Simp/Trad need not be repeated here; the difference between those in this case is trivial, every person that knows some degree of Chinese will recognise them immediately. Similarly, would you repeat sentences including "-ized" with "-ised" in the English Wikipedia just for the sake of catering for people using different variants of the same language? --Givesaved (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The templates Template:User zh-2 to Template:User zh-5 and Template:User zh share the original format and need to follow a uniform standard. That most Chinese readers understand traditional characters is not the point on the English wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias alsol mostly have the current style. Hekerui (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, how other Wikipedias word their templates or what other templates are like is irrelevant here. The changed version still conveys the same meaning and more importantly it is more succinct and reads more comfortably from a native speaker's point of view. Secondly, you either did not understand my edit or you were just ignoring it. I do not have a preference for Traditional characters, and in fact, I am a user of Simplified characters: I grew up learning it and still very much appreciate the beauty of simplification. What I was saying was that it is unnecessary to have the sentence repeated here; the new version gives a 50:50 chance of simplified and traditional characters, since the difference between them is trivial and anyone would be able to understand both. --Givesaved (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is not irrelevant. The template is part of a series and I don't think it should be changed. Hekerui (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, how other Wikipedias word their templates or what other templates are like is irrelevant here. The changed version still conveys the same meaning and more importantly it is more succinct and reads more comfortably from a native speaker's point of view. Secondly, you either did not understand my edit or you were just ignoring it. I do not have a preference for Traditional characters, and in fact, I am a user of Simplified characters: I grew up learning it and still very much appreciate the beauty of simplification. What I was saying was that it is unnecessary to have the sentence repeated here; the new version gives a 50:50 chance of simplified and traditional characters, since the difference between them is trivial and anyone would be able to understand both. --Givesaved (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The templates Template:User zh-2 to Template:User zh-5 and Template:User zh share the original format and need to follow a uniform standard. That most Chinese readers understand traditional characters is not the point on the English wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias alsol mostly have the current style. Hekerui (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)