Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese

RfC: How to display the characters[edit]

Not a great deal of participation, not to mention a socking editor (whose participation was discounted here). That said, consensus showed that editors were oppposed to the initial proposal as stated, specifically, the broad changes to the template to show simple characters first, followed by traditional ones using an alphabetical order system. However, editors were in favor of some modification of the template for use in particular cases to show simple characters first. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this template display simplified Chinese characters first or traditional Chinese characters first?--Gothicartech (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template as it is right now, displays traditional Chinese characters first, followed by the simplified Chinese characters. Now a problem appears, as all these templates in content related to mainland China are also displayed in this order, instead of simplified first. Ideally, we can customize the template to fit the individual articles' preferences (simplified Chinese characters first in articles related to mainland China, Singapore, e.g., where simplified is prevalent; and traditional characters first in articles related to Taiwan, Hong Kong, e.g., where traditional is prevalent), so such issue can be avoided. But unfortunately the order cannot be changed on this template. Because of this, I think the arrangement with the most common sense is simply the alphabetical order, list Simplified first and then Traditional.--Gothicartech (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional for now; fix the template to have a switch. That "solution" wouldn't make any sense at all. It's like giving someone a promotion based on their shoe size. While I agree the template (or a set of templates) should give the character renderings in the appropriate order for the subject, a) there is no reason this template cannot be modified to do that, and b) in the interim, have them appear in the order of most utility to the most bilingual users of en.wikipedia, which is almost certainly traditional. Sticking with traditional also keeps the template as is, instead of introducing a change, which is the default handling of any change like this (i.e., we already have a consensus, even if a loose one, and it takes arriving at a new consensus to change the old one). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support fixing the template. Additionally, I suggest retaining Traditional Chinese first for pre-1949 articles on mainland Chinese subjects, since Simplified Chinese is only made official under the PRC. _dk (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that modification of the template to change the character display order should be straightforward (famous last words). It's already done by {{Zh}} using the parameters "first=s" or "first=t". JohnBlackburne is the expert on this type of thing. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alphabetical, Support fixing the template. The template, if converted to Wikipedia:Lua could easily support this feature. Also complex templates like this one should be priorities for conversion because once converted they will be significantly simpler to maintain. The {{tl|zh)) template has already been converted and much of the code for that could be reused and expanded upon. Alphabetical has no logic other than it supports Gothicartech's idea that simplified should be first. Newest first is just as logical: oldest first is equally logical. Are you going to suggest alphabetising the transliterations too so that IPA comes after Hanyu Pinyin and before Wade-Giles? On pages with Mongolian or Manchu text should that go first cause M is before S and T. Lets not mess around with the template as is, get it into Lua and then have a proper discussion about how to set what first in the knowledge that we can technically implement whatever is decided. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use a fix as suggested by others above. Something like a "first=t" flag would probably do the job. What should be displayed first depends on the specific article, and editors should probably make their own rational decision for each individual case, consensus willing. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain the original order, traditional then simplified. Also, the order could be changed by the flag order=st, which is still in the documentation of the template and still in the markup of articles. It existed before you changed the original order. The flag should be restored to fix the ability to switch, per the users above. On another note, it would have made more sense to have this RFC on the template's talkpage rather than in its subpage. --Cold Season (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional characters should always be displayed first, at least by default; doing otherwise would be disrespectful. I really need that username (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automatic superscript[edit]

@White whirlwind: I added the template for Yale based on the article, which contains tone numbers as an alternative to the accented characters (it's used in a few articles, I think). Could the template and module be renamed to something like Template:Autotone or Template:Tone superscript? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: I saw that too, and it's a mistake (I'm fairly certain). Something like "tonesuperscript" with a redirect like "toness" would be good. White Whirlwind 咨 15:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@White whirlwind: Moved the module and created a shortcut ({{tonesup}}). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: please double-check your code changes, the module is currently outputting the Jyutping field when "w=" is used even if "j=" is not. White Whirlwind 咨 23:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@White whirlwind: Should be fine now, added a few #if:s. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scriptions: Why remove the template? Does it not work for Wade–Giles? Should the superscript be removed from the 2,000 articles which used it before it was made automatic? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template destroys HTML code, e.g. pʻin becomes p&#x²bb;in. Scriptions (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scriptions: Asking on WT:LUA how to fix this.

@White whirlwind: Is it standard for numbers to be non-superscript in Jyutping, and should the articles using superscript tags in |j= have the tags removed? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jyut6ping3 was invented by LSHK, and their Jyutping Work Group have compiled an LSHK Jyutping Word List which uses non-superscript digits. Scriptions (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showflags[edit]

@Scriptions: Why would you want to make two different showflags (|pj= and |py=) display exactly the same thing? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: I made the new showflag |py= because ‘py’ is more logical than ‘pj’ for a showflag that shows Hànyǔ Pīnyīn and Yale for Cantonese. Cf. User:Littlepenny413's recent creation of the showflag |y=, which shows Yale, despite the prior existence of a showflag |j= with the same effect. Scriptions (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it seem broken for all |j= (Jyutping) showflag. Matthew_hk t c 23:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The |j= (alternative Yale) showflags doing what they do is a feature, not a bug. Scriptions (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 23 October 2018[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update this template to the contents of Template:Infobox Chinese/Chinese/sandbox, per discussion at Template talk:Infobox Chinese#Showflag broken. Kanguole 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. A consensus needs to be reached before changing the template from the way it has been since December 2016. Scriptions (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scriptions:You are warned (see original wording in ANI) in ANI to revert your change in Special:Diff/754773886. Matthew_hk t c 13:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No warning was issued. I can't follow Primefac's suggestion because the template has been protected (by Primefac).

May I remind you that Primefac also concluded that your reporting me was in bad faith. Scriptions (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the emphases on "strongly " in strongly suggest. Matthew_hk t c 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Cabayi (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese Pinyin[edit]

Could cantonese pinyin (教院式拼音方案) be added? Ȝeſtikl (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In theory yes, in practice, how many user for 教院式? How many online conversion tool are there? Matthew hk (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to its article, it is the only romanization accepted by the education department. I found two converters that support cantonese pinyin so far. Ȝeſtikl (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not in secondary school curriculum. Also CUHK teach something else in their curriculum. Matthew hk (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don’t know about the “official” part. However, many articles about Cantonese romanization describe 教院式 as popular, along with LSHK and Yale. Ȝeſtikl (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) for opinion as by the technical side they wrote the code. I would say the template need to have a confined list of supporting romanization and dialect.

And off-topic. Here is the CUHK dictionary. https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/ Matthew hk (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks!

I also find that jyutping is very similar to cp, so it may not be needed anyway. Ȝeſtikl (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foochow BUC[edit]

I don’t think this one is widely used. I found no converters. Ȝeſtikl (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]