Language desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

Verify validity of an edit to Chinese characters?

Resolved

If someone could take a look at this edit to some Chinese characters and check that it is legitimate, I would be grateful. (Not watching, please ping.) --JBL (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Chinese. (Just Japanese, poorly.) But it looks to me like an accurate change from simplified to traditional (pre-simplification) characters. I believe that simplified characters are as barbaric to people used to traditional characters as traditional characters are rebarbative to people used to simplified characters; so my first (and uneducated) impression is that the edit was neither an improvement nor a degradation. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel B. Lewis: Looks legitimate to me. As Hoary said, just changing simplified to traditional characters (the linked articles about the Chinese mathematicians in question give both). I personally prefer traditional characters and believe they are more suitable for anything pre-1949, but others may disagree. —Kusma (t·c) 20:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! --JBL (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this change! It's probably politically motivated. Changing one script to another is not an improvement of the article and is even forbidden on the Chinese Wikipedia. It also doesn't do justice to the vast number of people who learn about the mathematician and his principle in simplified characters. The best way is to solve this is to add both scripts. --2001:16B8:2ED5:8800:CDE9:5B2:62D3:425F (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We have the template {{lang-zh}} which deals perfectly with such situations.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection: there are three hanzi compounds here. I see no reason to include either of the first two (in either traditional or simplified form): if people want to know what the hanzi are for either of these two people, they can click on the links to the articles about them and find the hanzi there. As for the third compound, there is a good reason to supply the hanzi, and (as the IP suggests) it seems a good idea to do so with both versions. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to act on this when I found that Lüboslóv Yęzýkin had beaten me to it. Thank you, Lüboslóv! -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osterwasser

Resolved

– 20:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The caption in German for this illustration:[1] seems to translate as "The walk to the Easter water", which doesn't make sense unless there is a cultural reference that eludes me. Could there be another translation for: "Der Gang nach dem Osterwasser"? The illustration does depict walking and water and a springtime motif. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

de:Osterwasser_(Brauchtum) also has some info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both! Interesting. They even reference the same illustration. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.s: note that guy in the picture is obviously a scoundrel (smoking a ~~cigarette~~ pipe, with the bowl turned sideways for some odd reason); he's leering at the young maiden (i.e. virgin) and knows that she isn't supposed to interact with anybody while performing her sacred task. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Modified:17:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The dodgy moustache is a giveaway... Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]