Talk:Simplified Chinese characters
Latest comment: 11 March 2024 by PlaneCrashKing1264 in topic Hmmm...
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simplified Chinese characters Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find 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".
Template:ITN talk Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Old merge full User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
Nomenclature
A few points I've been thinking about, though maybe it's good to have this on Talk:Chinese characters or Project:China or somewhere.
- So, I think it's correct to view 'traditional' and 'simplified' characters per se as sister sets, just like men didn't descend from apes: their character variants were both in use well before the two sets were standardized in the 20th century. If Khitan small script is a sibling of Simplified, so is Traditional, imo.
- There's a conflation throughout the article, maybe an insignificant one, but it seems important to me, between 'simplified' and 'Simplified' characters, and likewise with traditional. It feels right to use 'simplified' when talking about the concept in general and looking and various examples, and 'Simplified' when talking about the specific standard promulgated by the PRC, and its political/scholarly history &c &c. This is reinforced of course by the fact that there are different Traditional character sets used in Hong Kong versus Taiwan etc, and simplified variants that aren't on the PRC list.
Remsense (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm...
What issues are there? 🤔 PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- By far, the biggest issue with this article is that many paragraphs, and even entire sections, lack any inline citations. Remsense诉 02:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Like what? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the claims are a pain to find sources for if one can't read Chinese, but here's a representative example—the first paragraph of the article body:
- Template:Talk quote Remsense诉 04:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Like what? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)