Talk:Chinese characters
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese characters Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config Template:Old move Template:Section sizes Template:Todo
Whitespace
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell Greetings! I'm writing about the recent revert keeping the   HTML entity. MOS:MARKUP has a general directive to keep markup simple. Was there a specific reason why U+2004 is preferred over a simple ASCII space? As far as I can tell from the chart on Whitespace character, the widths are pretty indistinguishable. -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mere typesetting concerns. I was going to make sure to replace it with Template:Tlx before I went to sleep tonight—thanks for reminding me, I'm going to go ahead and do that now. Remsense ‥ 论 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- What are the specific typesetting concerns that would override the directive for simplicity? -- Beland (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- The default appearance sans brackets used for components is too visually crowded in running text. Remsense ‥ 论 23:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comparing the two versions, the "pad" version looks in my browser like it actually puts in too much space, wider than a normal ASCII space. If the version with brackets (I assume you mean round parentheses) looks good to you, I think it would be preferable to use that than non-standard whitespace. -- Beland (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is all due to historically having a more distinct presentation for components, which used small caps and no brackets. Small caps were then objected to, and I guess at this point the distinction is not at all clear between glosses of characters and names of components, so I should just use brackets for both. Remsense ‥ 论 00:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Great; thanks for the fix! -- Beland (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is all due to historically having a more distinct presentation for components, which used small caps and no brackets. Small caps were then objected to, and I guess at this point the distinction is not at all clear between glosses of characters and names of components, so I should just use brackets for both. Remsense ‥ 论 00:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comparing the two versions, the "pad" version looks in my browser like it actually puts in too much space, wider than a normal ASCII space. If the version with brackets (I assume you mean round parentheses) looks good to you, I think it would be preferable to use that than non-standard whitespace. -- Beland (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- The default appearance sans brackets used for components is too visually crowded in running text. Remsense ‥ 论 23:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- What are the specific typesetting concerns that would override the directive for simplicity? -- Beland (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Further reading
@CWH, do you mind if I move Wilkinson 6th ed. to the Template:Alink section? Alternatively, I could just switch all the citations to correspond to the 6th instead of 3rd edition. Remsense ‥ 论 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- A headache, but you are right to raise the question. I should have left an explanation. I started to get Wilkinson 6th page numbers, but realized that it would take a lot of time and not add much value, since the old edition is still a Reliable Source. But reference notes also have the second function of telling readers where to look if they want to see more on a topic, in this case, the 6th edition.
- So it would be great if you want to get the 6th edition page numbers (though Wilkinson is getting ready to issue a "final" edition), but meanwhile the admittedly awkward but useful hack would be to leave the 6th edition reference in its present uncomfortable but useful position.
- There are other things on this page to work on, such as style, accuracy, and consistency. Readers don't get much guidance on what to read at their level, since the notes often, correctly, cite specialized, erudite, scholarship that only a few libraries will have. It's not clear why we have the "Primary and media sources" section. Again, does not guide readers.
- The helpful thing would be to list the appropriate selected works in "Further reading," but Policy discourages listing an item in both "Works cited" and "Further reading." Thus important works appear in the notes but can't appear there and others are lost in the clutter.
- Well, apologies for a long answer to a short question! ch (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'll leave it as is, thanks for the lore! No, I really appreciate it, actually. Not to be a sycophant, but I've been meaning to ask how you feel about the article in general, given your background. Remsense ‥ 论 21:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Other independently invented scripts
Does the lead try to imply that pre-Columbian writing in the Americas was derived from one of the systems listed in the lead? 84.245.121.76 (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- That was just added by User:Jdftba and differs from what the body of the article says. Kanguole 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, the body lists the Maya script instead of the Indus Valley script. Can you please fix it? Thanks again. 84.245.121.76 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)