Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

RfC: Should the template group both Chinese Hán (for writing Chinese language) and Vietnamese nôm (for writing Vietnamese language) names and terms as one identity "Han-Nom", "Han (and) Nom"?

I'm not seeing a consensus here. I'm closing this and suggest editors take a break; if a resolution is desired, I suggest editors on both sides of this issue consider whether a compromise solution might be found.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

RfC: Should the template group both Chinese Hán and Vietnamese nôm scripts as one identity "Han-Nom", "Han (and) Nom"? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC) - Note: Chữ nôm#Syntax article for examples of Chữ nôm as opposed to Hán names where both names co-exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • No - people and places in Vietnamese history generally only have Hán names, that is Chinese pronounced with a Vietnamese pronunciation, broadly like Kanji vs Hiragana in Japan or Hancha vs Hangul in Korean. However many of the titles of major nôm works in Vietnamese literature are in fact given Chinese/Hán titles (analogous to Kanbun titles in Japan, Hanmun titles in Korea), using characters within the basic Hán character set and avoiding both the extra nôm characters and following Chinese word order not nôm syntax, so actual use for nôm in a template is extremely rare. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • RfCbot invitee - No. They are not the same, and there are regular instances (see in ictu, above) where they have different values, and conflating them can only confuse readers and impair their understanding of the relationship between Han and nom names. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No - These are 2 different sets, Hán vs Nôm is comparable to Latin vs romanized Vietnamese (aka Quốc-ngữ). While romanized Vietnamese is based on the Latin script, it contains distinct letters and marks (along with pronunciation differentiation) that do not exist in Latin, thus making Latin≠romanized Vietnamese. Duyệt-phố (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This appears to be an SPA, as well as someone who does not have any idea what this RFC is about. No, neither Han nor Nom use diacritics. I must admit that the RFC is rather confusing. White Whirlwind figured it out before I did. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Duyệt-phố, thank you so much for taking the time to look at this. En.wp is completely lacking in expertise on this subject, and badly needs the help of expert vi.wp editors. Your comparison "These are 2 different sets, Hán vs Nôm is comparable to Latin vs romanized Vietnamese (aka Quốc-ngữ)." makes perfect sense and should be convincing to English readers who can understand the difference between Europe's Latin language and looks-like-Latin-but-isn't modern Vietnamese Quốc-ngữ. That is the perfect comparison with Chinese language and looks-like-Chinese-but-isn't ancient Vietnamese Nôm. I wish I had thought of such a simple and meaningful comparison. Thank you. If you have time then many of these related articles need expert help and revision. Cám ơn rất nhiều. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The most comprehensive Nom dictionary, Lê Quý Ngưu's Đại Tự Điển Chữ Nôm, has about 19,000 characters. The Kangxi dictionary has nearly 50,000, and Hanyu Da Cidian has about 23,000. So there are certainly more characters in Han than in Nom. Kauffner (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes – I think this would actually simplify the infobox a good deal. As I've described above, not combining them would be like having separate parameters for kanji and kokuji under Japanese.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind can you give an example of an article on en.wp with different names in Kanji and Kokuji?
No, and I thought that was the point. Are there Vietnamese articles with different names in chữ Hán and chữ nôm? I'm not aware of any.  White Whirlwind  咨  15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind that's what I though about Kanji and Kokuji, which is why I'm struggling to see the comparison.
Yes of course Hán and nôm names are different for many subjects. In most case where both exist we use the Hán name as article title and first in lead, the nôm name is listed second in lead. We do have a small number of articles where the reverse is true as the nôm name is more common, and then the nôm name is the title and first in lead, and the Hán name is second. An example is Cả River which is at the nôm name and the Hán name, Lam River, is listed second in lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Where are the characters for those?  White Whirlwind  咨  18:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:White whirlwind, the Chinese name is wikt:蓝, but which of several nôm cả characters it is we'd need a specialist source, references simply say it is the "tên nôm" - common name, not 100% equivalent with a fixed nôm character being known.
There is a persistent problem with nôm geonames that (being primarily oral, since local tax records written in Chinese with Chinese place names) there may not exist any fixed nôm character, and books discussing the issue usually don't give either character. e.g. Ngữ học trẻ 2002: diễn đàn học tập và nghiên cứu 2003 - Page 587 "... làng Vong (tên nôm của Dịch Vong Hậu), làng Láng (tên nôm của Yên Lãng)," = ... Vong village (the nôm name of Dịch Vong Hậu), Láng village (the nôm name of Yên Lãng), and so on.
Many place names in Vietnam are Nôm. Thăng-long/Đông-kinh/Hà-nội are the formal names but the Nôm name for many centuries is Kẻ Chợ. This is seen on many old European maps which identified it as "Cachao". Huế is another example cannot be written in chữ Nho. The latter equivalent is "Thuận-hóa" but is you go by Thuận-hóa and ask a Vietnamese "how can I get to 'Thuận-hóa'?" I doubt if many can tell you where it is. Sài-gòn (formal historical name in Hán: Gia-định Thành), the largest city is also a Nôm name, as is Cam-ranh, Vũng Tàu, Phan-rang, Cần-thơ, Kẻ Sặt, Bãi Cháy, Chợ Lớn, Bến Nghé, sông Đuống, cù lao Ré (Lý-sơn)... all coexist with formal names (tên chữ in Hán) as well although 1 or the other have taken precedence over the years, leaving 1 in common usage but the other name still lurks in the background.Duyệt-phố (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
These are examples of formal and informal names in quốc ngữ, which is not what the template is for. Perhaps they correspond to Han vs. Nom, but how would you check? The "Han" name presumably appeared in formal Nom writing as well. I don't know of any reference work that would cover this issue. The idea of the template is to show how the name as it was usually given in the traditional writing system. Readers familiar with the writing system of Korea or Japan will understand more easily if the template treats Vietnam in the same way. Kauffner (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Also note that a Nôm name doesn't have to be exclusively avoiding Chinese characters: wikt:翹 is a fully Chinese character, and yet we still have the distinction of Truyện Kiều (chữ Nôm : 傳翹), for which the Hán name is 斷腸新聲 In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind incidently Chữ nôm itself is an example of where a different Hán name exists for the "vernacular script," (see lead) equally the name vernacular/Nôm named food articles like Phở would also have Hán names if we sought them out, but even for cases where articles don't have both without the Hán we still cannot call a Nôm character Phở as "Han-Nom" when it is Nôm .
You said yes above but I don't see you actually supporting "Han-Nom: 傳翹; 斷腸新聲" instead of "Nôm: 傳翹 Hán: 斷腸新聲." In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, the articles mentioned just list both names. They don't make any Han vs Nom distinction. For a book title, labels like "Chinese" and "Vietnamese" would make more sense anyway. As far as the river goes, perhaps tên nôm indicates the Nom reading of the same character. That there is no easy way to check suggests that no one else worries about this distinction. Kauffner (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but is your name User:White whirlwind?
White Whirlwind, you said yes above but I don't see you actually supporting "Han-Nom: 傳翹; 斷腸新聲" instead of "Nôm: 傳翹 Hán: 斷腸新聲."? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a few days to respond. Those are good examples User:in ictu oculi, but I'm getting more and more uncomfortable with the apparent blurring between the earlier distinction between Nôm and Han as different types of characters versus different types of literature/language, as the "Truyên Kiêu"-"Đoan Trương Tân Thanh" case demonstrates. The titles are equally clear regardless of what language one reads the characters in. I feel like we don't have enough reputable scholarship treating the current state of Sino-Vietnamese linguistic conventions (incidentally two of my old advisors, both quite renowned sinologists, commented to me recently how neglected the field of Sino-Vietnamese is in terms of both quality AND quantity). At this point I'm inclined to suggest whatever changes we make be as minor as possible and wait for the field to catch up.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind, thanks? So that's a Yes (= yes merge Vietnamese written with demotic script and Chinese written with Chinese script into one language Vietnamese-and-Chinese "Han-Nom: 傳翹; 斷腸新聲" ) or a No (= do not merge, Vietnamese and Chinese are separate languages "Nôm: 傳翹 Hán: 斷腸新聲.") ? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
[Excursus: I'm forced to again say "I'm sorry, but is your name User:White whirlwind?" - while this may appear uncivil, this is necessary based on previous experience with what, sorry, appears to be a tactic of filibustering and interrupting questions to others, for example the excruciating merger of the Talk:Han-Nom duplicate article. Hanoi does indeed have such an institute, just as University of San Francisco has a Department of Greek and Latin Studies, it has been repeatedly explained at Talk:History of writing in Vietnam by User:Itsmejudith User:Gaijin42 etc. - Kauffner there is already an outstanding question for you down below In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)].
I'll stay with Yes for now. The few articles where there are differences could be supplied with a simple note for the time being. We would then monitor the reliable sources and look for a gelling of convention. User:Kauffner causes me concern again with his citing of that Tạp chí Hán Nôm. That is a very poor source for the English Wikipedia. We would only want to use that source if it was cited by peer-reviewed English scholarship, such as in the JAOS, proceedings of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, articles on Sino-Vietnamese from the Journal of Chinese Linguistics, and others. This is the standard we adhere to for sinology and similar fields.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind, thanks. Out of interest "The few articles where there are differences could be supplied with a simple note for the time being." How many are we talking about? 40, 100, 4,000? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Also - are you aware of any other languages we merge in templates?
We don't merge Greek and Latin. But why not merge Japanese and Chinese:
Seriously - if we're merging Vietnamese and Chinese because they were both used in Vietnam, by the same logic Japanese and Chinese were both used in Japan. Why single out Vietnamese for merging with Chinese in templates? Japanese and Chinese look similar, why not merge them in the template too? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
User:In ictu oculi – perhaps you are frustrated from dealing with this issue but please avoid snarkiness in your comments. How many articles are we talking about? I do not know and do not care, for the purposes of this discussion. It's ironic that you use two sarcastic examples that aren't quite as silly as you think. This "created term" Japanese-Chinese already exists and is commonly used in relevant scholarship: it's called "Sino-Japanese". It would be perfectly suitable in the Kaifūsō article. Please stop debating this with me – I've made my decision. I'm busy finishing my article for the upcoming Berkshire Dictionary of Chinese Biography.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind, as an academic I would generally say I find it surprising that some of my colleagues among scholars of Chinese don't always first study Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese to a similar depth as their studies of Chinese before making comparisons.
In fact you misread me, there's nothing remotely sarcastic about those examples, I was merely trying to help you see what you are supporting in Japanese context rather than Vietnamese.
But you are mistaken, the term Japanese-Chinese is not equivalent to Sino-Japanese, which within the Sino-Xenic construct usually means Chinese as used in Japan. Tale of Genji is not however written in Chinese, nor is Tale of Genji Sino-Xenic, so it is not clear to me why anyone would support a template saying Japanese-Chinese: 源氏物語 or Sino-Xenic: 源氏物語 - since it isn't.
As for number of articles affected, I would estimate it could be up to 2,000 of the Vietnam corpus. A larger number in fact than of the Japanese corpus if Genji Monogatari were to become Japanese-Chinese: 源氏物語 and Kaifūsō could also become Japanese-Chinese: 懐風藻.
Also the purpose is not to debate with you, it is to explain the problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Please read my responses carefully before replying. 1) Do not hyphenate "sinoxenic" – this is not the 1970s or 80s. "Sinoxenic" has been the standard spelling for years. 2) I would avoid implying that other editors do not understand certain topics or "are mistaken". I didn't suggest that the term "Sino-Japanese" would be appropriate for the Genji Monogatari, everyone knows it wouldn't (well, only for the Genji 源氏), I said it would be "perfectly suitable" for Kaifūsō. All I'm saying is this: for the time being, let's let kanji serve as a general term for Chinese characters as used in Japan, hanja as in Korea, and Han-Nôm as in Vietnam, for the sake of simplicity. We can then wait and see what the academic community settles on as the Austroasiatic field grows and matures. Now can we please stop cluttering this survey up?  White Whirlwind  咨  00:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
User:White whirlwind. (1) look around, Wikipedia does not follow Edwin G. Pulleyblank's capitalization/hyphenation "sinoxenic," nor indeed does he himself consistently, nor do other academics. (2) We do not need to "[We can then] wait and see what the academic community settles on as the Austroasiatic field grows and matures" - Vietnamese studies is already mature and does not bulk Chinese and demotic characters together. "let's let kanji serve as a general term for Chinese characters as used in Japan, hanja as in Korea, and Han-Nôm as in Vietnam" - apart from the mis-comparison with Japanese and Korean what do you mean "Han-Nôm as in Vietnam" - "..as in Vietnamese?" "..as in Vietnam Studies in Vietnam"? What do you think the term means and to whom? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting very tired of continuing this discussion and I'm sure other editors are tired of us cluttering up this page. I'll answer your final 2 points. 1) How Wikipedia currently uses something doesn't necessarily relate to how a thing ought to be used. Wikipedia still is deficient in certain areas and needs cleanup to adhere to academic standards in a number of fields. I realize the removal of the hyphen in "sinoxenic" generally began with Pulleyblank (RIP), but the majority of current publications follow his usage. A textual search through GScholar indicates that since 2000 the usage of "sinoxenic" in academic publications is about 3x that of "sino-xenic". If you search since 2007 it increases to between 4x and 5x. 2) The Vietnamese linguistics field (and Austroasiatic in general) is far behind that of the Chinese and larger Sino-Tibetan fields, let alone Indo-European. The well-known linguist Zev Handel was recently lamenting to me how much work the field needs, and he was writing from the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society meeting in Bangkok after conferring with leaders in the field like Paul Sidwell and Gérard Diffloth. As to your last question, I'm confused as to how you didn't understand my meaning – that sentence is perfectly clear. I wrote "...as used in Japan, hanja as in Korea, and Han-Nôm as in Vietnam." The verb "used" doesn't need to be repeated, this is called verb phrase ellipsis. Are you not a fluent speaker of English? You've seemed very good so far. I welcome your reply but feel it would be best if this discussion ends or is moved to another location so we do not clutter this page up more than we already have.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Colleague, I'm somewhat tired of this discussion though I cannot judge whether other editors are tired or not and it is important to dispel misunderstandings. The reason for asking what you meant by "Hán-Nôm as [used] in Vietnam" is Hán-Nôm as used in Vietnam would mean No not Yes to the RfC question, and would mean activating Hán in the template for Hán names and activating Nôm in the template for Nôm names. In ictu oculi (talk)
  • Yes – Han (Classical Chinese) and Nom (old-style Vietnamese) are different languages with different grammar and pronunciation. But the characters used to write names and individual words are the same in both languages. As already noted, we don't make an equivalent distinction in the case of Korea or Japan. We should keep the number of words the reader is likely to be unfamiliar with to a minimum.
  • When Chinese characters appear in a Korea-oriented article, we call them "hanja". We don't distinguish as to whether the primary source is in Korean or in Chinese. For Japan, the same characters are described as "kanji" -- again with no distinction as to what language they are used to write.
  • The Chữ Hán descriptor was created only recently. It's a Vietnamese-language word for "Chinese characters," or more precisely, "the characters that were used to write Classical Chinese." If anyone is using this expression in English-language RS, I have not seen it. Does use on the template suggest that a given expression is not Nom? That would be misleading since the name of every notable individual in Vietnamese history has appeared in both Han and Nom at some point. Kauffner (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
1. J. Edmondson, University of Texas at Arlington, article on Vietnamese in Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World Elsevier 2010 Page 1149 is among the sources for Chữ Hán
2. Can you please give an example of a en.wp article with a nôm title? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Names are generally given the same way in Han as they are in Nom. If you had read what I wrote, I wouldn't have to repeat it. Kauffner (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Well if you knew something about Hán and nôm then you'd know that some Vietnamese places have two names, one the administrative name in Hán and a vernacular popular nôm name. You'd also know that some ancient or mythical/religious figures also have both Hán and nôm names. Likewise ancient books, songs and poems might have names in either or both. This was the reason for asking if can you please give an example of a en.wp article with a nôm title. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Vietnamese names of individuals (eg Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ Đỗ Mười, Tô Huy Rứa, Trương Quang Được, Nguyễn Đình Bin...) and places (Mỹ Tho, Rạch Giá, Sóc Trăng, Bến Tre...) cannot be written in chu Han, only in Nom. Saying Kanji/Hanja/Han-Nom are the same would make no sense. If a true parallel is to be set it would be Kanji(J)/Hanja(K)/chu Han(V) because someone well-versed in classical Chinese would be able to decipher 70+% (my estimate) of the content fairly easily in those 3 categories. Chu Nom however, does not fall into that realm. By appearance to an untrained person they may look the same but they do not convey the same. Lumping Han-Nom as a single script would be saying that the Cherokee syllabary is a Latin/Greek/Cyrillic script simply because it has those elements by appearance.Duyệt-phố (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • I'm not following this theory since the writing system in Vietnam was never analogous to that in Korea or Japan, at least not in the way suggested above. I wrote an article on this at Han-Nom, if anyone wants a detailed account. I have to wonder if this RfC is some kind of ethnic put down. The gist seems to be Vietnamese didn't really write Vietnamese, but instead wrote Chinese incorrectly. Kauffner (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, the problem is this user doesn't know enough about the subject to be writing articles or forcing changes onto templates. See separate RfC for merger of duplicate article at Talk:Chữ nôm. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that the Japan/Korea analogy has been refined, apparently in response to my criticism.[1] Kauffner (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Though this is all rehash. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Template:Infobox Chinese → Template:Infobox name transliteration – As can be seen from the documentation, this template is used for more than a dozen languages ranging from Assamese to Russian, some of which are unrelated to Chinese. Displaying a Chinese name in every instance of the template is neither required by its current implementation nor does it happen in practice, leading to a paradoxical situation where a template named "Infobox Chinese" is used even where no Chinese text is displayed at all. eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The infobox is meant for use in the Sinosphere and neighboring languages centered, of course, on Chinese. It is not a general template for use with any language. For example, it is used in the article mace (unit) with various Chinese forms along with the three other languages that use(d) Chinese characters and then four other languages of areas once in the Chinese economic sphere or with Chinese-derived names. —  AjaxSmack  02:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per AjaxSmack, it's only a template name and the current name is broadly accurate enough, recognisable, familiar and convenient. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the transclusions of this template, it's obvious that it is used for many more languages than just those in the vicinity of Chinese. Look at Far East: it shows names in many languages (Filipino, Malay, Portuguese, etc.), and Chinese just happens to be one of them. It might not have been intended as a general-purpose language template when it was created, but it is definitely used as one by now. The name of this template should reflect its actual usage, which has often little to do with the Chinese language.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Still waiting

On the Old Chinese field. The Middle Chinese field also needs to be expanded for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. names as well. Where you'd need to use it for the first entry, you're also going to want it for the others. — LlywelynII 07:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

For both Middle Chinese and Old Chinese it would be necessary to specify which reconstruction is being used – there are several to choose from. You suggested Baxter-Sagart above for OC, but this is recent and somewhat speculative work that hasn't had much review. The document you link to has been delinked from their site pending publication of a revised version in their forthcoming book (now estimated at May 2014[2]). Kanguole 09:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
And we already include MC categories, hence the lack of reason to exclude OC. As long as we're citing the source, if it is later discredited or other formats shown to be superior, future editors can fix that (cf. our ongoing marginalization of Wade names). It's still useful to have the info. — LlywelynII 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fourth alt

I've run into historical places &c. where I've needed more names and it would be inapproprate to start a new box with a new large title (e.g., Li County, Gansu). I've accordingly expanded the template to handle a fourth alt. If there are good arguements against that, lemme know. — LlywelynII 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any objections?

To my editing the example text? Right now it reads:

|c = !-- Chinese (Use when traditional = simplified)
|t = !-- Traditional -->
|s = !-- Simplified -->
|l = !-- Literal Meaning -->
|tp = !-- Tongyong pinyin -->
|p = !-- Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin -->
|w = !-- Wade Giles -->
|mi = !-- Mandarin IPA -->
|psp = !-- Chinese postal map -->
|myr = !-- Mandarin Yale Romanization -->
|gr = !-- Gwoyeu Romatzyh -->
|bpmf = !-- Bopomofo -->

|mps = !-- Mandarin Phonetic Symbols 2 -->

which means that every time I use it, it takes needless time to pare down the categories I'm actually using.

My initial thought would be to make it:

|c = !-- Chinese (Use when traditional = simplified)
|t = !-- Traditional -->
|s = !-- Simplified -->
|l = !-- Literal Meaning -->
|p = !-- Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin -->
|w = !-- Wade Giles -->
|psp = !-- Chinese postal map -->
|bpmf = !-- Bopomofo -->
|tp = !-- Tongyong pinyin -->
|myr = !-- Mandarin Yale Romanization -->
|gr = !-- Gwoyeu Romatzyh -->
|mi = !-- Mandarin IPA -->

|mps = !-- Mandarin Phonetic Symbols 2 -->

so I can quickly delete the categories no one actual uses while preserving those we do.

n1. It would probably be better to just call Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin "Pinyin" and leave Tongyong Pinyin the way it is, but we can leave the longer name for Hanyu Pinyin as long as it's first. Otherwise, it seems like it's misleading to most non-Sinologist users, since they're only going to know that they're trying to enter "pinyin".

n2. I would understand placing IPA higher but I don't encourage its use since (A) pinyin is already phonetic enough that {{IPA-cmn}} can process pinyin entries directly into IPA; (B) anyone who understands Chinese IPA symbols (for my money) already knows how to read the pinyin directly; (C) most (even new) browsers in my experience don't process {{IPA-cmn}} correctly and randomly drop letters until you remove the tone marks. — LlywelynII 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Wuu"

What is this, anyway? Wu is a language family, not a language, so we should clarify what we're talking about. Is it supposed to be modern Shanghainese? current Suzhounese? some prestige version of classical Suzhounese?

If the first, what's the difference between what we should enter in the "wuu" field and what we should enter in the "lmz" field? I'm sure there's a good answer: it's just not clear at the moment from the template info. — LlywelynII 01:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Related question: For articles about subjects in the Wu area, is there a good, accessible online source for the pronunciations to be entered here or at "lmz"? Wiktionary usually has Cantonese values for characters, but their coverage of Wu is minimal. — LlywelynII 01:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lao is documented but not implemented

The doc says you can use the lao parameter to provide a Lao language entry, but in the actual template code no such parameter exists.

It should be removed from the docs or added to the implementation. In the meantime, langN and langN_content works fine. — Hippietrail (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Language and script codes

Some languages in this template are correctly marked up using the {{lang}} template, however some others, such as {{Infobox Chinese/Thai}}, Mongolian, Dunganese and Manchu are not marked up correctly. I plan to edit these such that for example in the Thai case: {{lang|th-thai|.....}} is wrapped around the output text. This ensures that browsers will correctly load fonts that support Thai and other scripts and also provide accessibility tools for disabled users such as blind people using a screen reader. It also ensures that search engines find and index the pages correctly. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How to display Traditional Chinese first?

The template instructions mention this flag: "order=st: By default Traditional Chinese comes first on display. If this flag is called, Simplified Chinese will be displayed first. This is for articles having to do with PRC, Singapore, Malaysia, or Simplified Chinese." However, at some point somebody has switched the order so that Simplified comes first by default, and so I can't figure out how to display traditional characters first in Hong Kong-related articles. Could someone switch them back, or tell me how to make the change in individual articles (a much more cumbersome option)? Citobun (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Template documentation not updated in change. Consensus? Dcattell (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You can't change the order, since it was an unilateral change with no consensus [3] and that was not added. Just revert. --Cold Season (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, just switched it back. Though, someone needs to restore the "order=st" flag. --Cold Season (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, now a similar problem appears, as all those related to mainland China, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. are displayed in this order, instead of simplified first. And you can't change it. Unless we can actually customize them to the individual articles, the arrangement should stay in the alphabetical order, S first and then T.--Gothicartech (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The original is traditional then simplified, which also included the flag "order=st" to switch it. This flag is still remaining in the markup of those wiki articles. This flag should also be restored in this template, since its removal is also undiscussed. While a flag to display traditional before simplified has never even existed, so it is not in the markup of any wiki articles.
If you want to change it from the original (as you did without discussion, exemplified by the previous users in this talk), seek consensus or provide where consensus has been established to change it, in a RfC or something (while you are at it, make a new flag and add it to the necessary articles afterwards when done). Heck, even the documentation wasn't changed. --Cold Season (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case, alphabetical order is both completely arbitrary and undesirable. Best for encyclopedic content is historical order. Which was the original or most consensus glyph usage, in a given case? For modern PRC topics, simplified of course. For Tang, Han, etc., traditional, of course. This makes sense, and is not to be compared to alphabetizing Chinese characters. Maybe new parameter "O", to add to "S" and "T"? "O" for original (also alphabetically prior!). Dcattell (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please configure the infobox so that it can be incorporated to another infobox as a child module

Kind of how Template:Infobox Korean name can be incorporated to another infobox by an edit such as this. Timmyshin (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Had a go at it: see Gu Yanwu. Kanguole 13:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice, thanks a lot! Timmyshin (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Japanese romanisation

Imaginatorium
Japanese name
Kanji想像館
RomanizationSōzōkan


An oddity I have noticed several times lately is that on pages such as Candareen the 漢字 infobox show Japanese in kanji and hiragana, plus a line for "Transcriptions", which opens to show the Hepburn. This is a bit silly, because the "Transcriptions" line could be replaced by the Hepburn line and show the transcription directly. I am not sure whether this is really an issue for the template or for the way in which people use it, but a couple of suggestions:

  • Make the Hepburn appear immediately. Except for hardcore Japanese language topics, alternative romanisations are not relevant.
  • Remove the hiragana. It really serves no purpose: Japanese speakers can immediately reconstruct it from (proper) romanisation, and it is no use to non-speakers for searching for example.

There are some comments in earlier threads about the appearance. I very much agree that it would be good if someone could think of a Really Neat way to show that this is linguistic information rather than (whatever it's called) topic information. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's possible to do; but if there is only one romanisation, this could be automatic, and I guess that hide=no applies to all languages. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese sorting

All,

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to re-order the Chinese varieties. For example, at present Hakka will show up before Mandarin, which I often find distracting. I think a standard North --> South order could work well: Northern (Mandarin, maybe Jin) --> Central (Wu [which needs work itself], Gan, Xiang, etc.) --> Southern (Yue, Hakka, Pinghua, Min, etc.). Min could also use a bit of expansion with subcategories that allow its distinctions to be made clear. Any thoughts?  White Whirlwind  咨  05:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if it were customisable to match the context, i.e. Cantonese romanisation first for Hong Kong articles. Citobun (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Going postal

Could someone change the descriptor "Postal map" to "Postal"? The article linked to is called postal romanization, none of the best sources use the word "map," and there is no word corresponding to map in the original Chinese version of the name. Perkins' Encyclopedia of China (2013), calls it "postal system of romanization." The main source used in the article is a journal monograph entitled, ""A Lasting Boon to All”: A Note on the Postal Romanization of Place Names, 1896–1949". The ROC post office put out a manual explaining the system under the title Postal Romanization (1961). So the tertiary, secondary, and primary sources agree. Tasty love salad (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

done. Not sure myself that is the best name for the article. It makes sense in the infobox as the title “Infobox Chinese” and contents make it clear the context, but article title should stand alone. The sources you mention are Chinese or China related, so of course omit “China” or “Chinese”. I could find many sources referring to David Cameron as the prime minister but the article is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for obvious reasons.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! That's certianly an improvement. But the "map" part that I was objecting to is still there. Tasty love salad (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see, fixed. I misunderstood, and thought you meant just to update the link.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I rewrote almost the entire postal romanization article if anyone is interested. It was in a sad state when I got to it, full of unsourced misunderstandings that were based on misinformation and uncorrected typos. Tasty love salad (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Showflag Problems [Fixed]

All,

We seem to be having some problems with the "showflag=" parameter – specifically, it seems to be broken. A quick example:

Infobox Chinese/Archive 3
Traditional Chinese中國
Simplified Chinese中国
Literal meaning"Middle Kingdom"
Infobox Chinese/Archive 3
Traditional Chinese中國
Simplified Chinese中国
Hanyu PinyinZhōngguó
Literal meaning"Middle Kingdom"

The second infobox differs only in that it has the "showflag=p" parameter called, but it is not functioning. Note that even the example in the documentation is not currently working (it should be showing Jyutping outside the hidden area).

If a coder could take a look at this I think I speak for us all when I say it would be much appreciated.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It was caused by this edit in {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}; Jc86035, did you perform the same change to any of the other subtemplates? Alakzi (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, |showflag= is only used with Chinese, so everything should be back to normal. Alakzi (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Thanks very much for your help.
@Jc86035: Please do not edit Wikipedia templates unless you have a thorough understanding of the coding language and syntax, as it often produces messes like this one. Test edits should only be done in sandboxes.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In Shanghainese, |showflag=lmz isn't making Shanghainese display outside of the hide area. I looked at {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}, but I can't figure out how the code works. Can someone fix it? — Eru·tuon 06:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Added; should work. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jc86035: It works now. Thank you! — Eru·tuon 19:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Chinese teas

I don't have much template experience, but could someone make it possible to put {{Infobox Chinese}} inside {{Infobox tea}}? I've been adding Chinese names of teas in pinyin and IPA into articles, but it would really be cleaner to put the information into an infobox. — Eru·tuon 00:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is a bit of a mess, but I've had a go – see Shui Jin Gui tea. Kanguole 01:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

Can we amend this template so that image sizes can be directly given in upright= terms? This is recommended at WP:IMAGESIZE and MOS:IMGSIZE, and, as far as I have been able to determine, the only current way to implement this in the template is by using the functions at Module:InfoboxImage. Thanks.

 White Whirlwind  咨  10:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

TPER moved from Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Header to central — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@White whirlwind: I've put the updates into Template:Infobox Chinese/Header/sandbox (can you verify if this is your intent) (and Template:Infobox Chinese/sandbox to call it), so you can test using {{Infobox Chinese/sandbox}}. The "upright" params are |picupright= and |picupright2= for current param naming consistency. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Looks good to me, thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Synced, and synced {{Infobox Chinese}}. Specify a |picupright= for other infoboxes that use the header template as needed, cheers — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2016

Please apply this change, which makes the background colour of headers settable with |headercolor=. I've already made the corresponding change to all the other subtemplates. Kanguole 12:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Done and updated the doc here. — Andy W. (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

IPA for more languages

Mandarin, Cantonese, Lao, Khmer, Lhasa Tibetan, Uighur, and Burmese seem to be the only languages that have IPA parameter. Can someone make IPA available for more languages? Also, the literal meaning parameter is available for Chinese, Korean, Uighur, and Vietnamese only. Many Indic languages lack transliteration parameters. --Brett (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

|collapse=no not working

The |collapse=no seems not to be working. See Shizi, Pingtung for example. —  AjaxSmack  01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pha̍k-fa-sṳ parameter

Could somebody add |phfs= to this template, for the Pha̍k-fa-sṳ romanization? This would be consistent with Template:Infobox Chinese/Chinese. Thanks, Phlar (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I second this request. Currently, the only Hakka link is the |h= which reads "Romanization" links to Guangdong Romanization. However, hundreds of Taiwan placenames are in Pha̍k-fa-sṳ and need a link to Hakka Pha̍k-fa-sṳ. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  03:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Phlar and AjaxSmack:  Done Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
​Thanks! —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why no headers in the non-hidden template?

Why do the language headers (e.g. Standard Mandarin, Hakka) appear in the collapsible version of the template (e.g. in Kunqu) but not in the |hide=no version (e.g. in Changzhi, Pingtung)? —  AjaxSmack  01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This change was made in 2013 by User:Underlying lk. I'm not sure why, as those headers still make sense in this case. Kanguole 07:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
​​If neither User:Underlying lk nor anyone else objects. I'll undo it. —  AjaxSmack  00:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't object since I don't remember why I did that change almost four years ago.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger with Template:Infobox name module

@Betty Logan: Might be better to test in the sandbox.

Probably the only thing required for converting the other template to a wrapper is to make it possible to hide the headers, since it displays automatically. Not sure how to do this, since each subtemplate uses a different name for the header parameter currently. (It might help to change them all to |header=. Making |header=no/|chinese_header=no/etc. hide the header should work.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Yeah, I definitely should have used the sandbox in retrospect; it looked straightforward at first look and then it turned out to be much more complicated than I originally anticipated. We can't just drop the code in because some of the parameters share names so I was trying to mimic the functionality with the sub-templates, but they resulted in formatting differences. This is not going to be simple to do. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll note that it's just better not to do it. The merger wasn't unanimous and had no involvement from people who work on Chinese articles. These are completely different templates used for separate purposes and have little→nothing in common. — LlywelynII 22:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: It's honestly a matter of adding a |header=none switch, and then converting the other template into a wrapper and substituting its transclusions. For the record, Cs california, Epulum, Cyphoidbomb, myself and pretty much all participants in the discussion have each edited multiple articles pertaining to Chinese or Korean topics. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
If anyone knows how I would like to suggest adding a javascript dropdown so it can be hidden from view if it gets very large. Some of the languages have lots of dialects and makes the box very long. --Cs california (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cs california: The transcriptions box for each language is already collapsible normally, if that's what you mean. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
yes thanks --Cs california (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks

The looks of this template could be harmonised with both Template:Infobox family, and Template:Infobox person. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sidney Lau Romanisation

Could somebody add support for the Sidney Lau romanisation system for Cantonese? Since this already exists in the Chinese template (Sidney Lau: **), but not in this language box. Also it is still used by some in HK, and has been added to some of the pages concerning HK. --Kdm852 (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this request was implemented with this edit. Phlar (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close, since the proposed title is still occupied and any move request isn't going to result in someone actually performing this merge. Please feel free to bring this up again if necessary when only one of these is a template. Dekimasuよ! 00:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Template:Infobox Chinese → Template:Infobox name module – I'm not sure if the merger process (discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 7#Template:Infobox name module) is going on, but the name of the merged template should be Template:Infobox name module rather than Template:Infobox Chinese (even though this page is the merger destination). Tisanophile (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment There was a consensus to merge but it never happened because the templates are functionally very different. The move obviously can't go ahead unless the merge goes ahead; if the templates are successfully merged (whcih I don't think is going to happen now—see #Merger with Template:Infobox name module above)) then I would support the rename. However, I think this rename proposal should undergo a procedural close because it obviously can't happen at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. The issue is the complexity of this template, one of the most complex still not converted to Lua. I’ve had a look at it with an eye to converting it to Lua before, but have been put off by its complexity. It would still make sense to do this, before merging, but the issue is the same: it is a major undertaking that no-one has gotten around to yet.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name1

Infobox title
name1
Chinesename1 chinese
altname
Chinesealtname chinese

That name1 field, given in the documentation, doesn't seem to do much. I was just wondering, while looking at the infobox usage at the article Mazu. --Cold Season (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Aah, I see its only for child=yes. --Cold Season (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Rendering of "c" parameter

The template does not alter the font style when the "|c" parameter is filled. See

History of Song
Chinese宋史
History of Song
Chinese宋史

CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Extremely racist: lumping together Southeast Asian languages under "Chinese"

It's name should be changed, expanded to more languages and made to focus, uhm, less on Chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:B500:7760:A093:9070:CCF4:3D19 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed should we just rename it Languagebox or something--Cs california (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not a problem. The other languages appear under their own headings, just like Japanese and Korean do, and it's clear that they are not somehow part of the Chinese languages.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if I've understood the situation correctly: if someone wants to add, for example, Arabic text to {{Infobox officeholder}} with associated Romanizations/transcriptions and labels, the recommended method is to include {{Infobox Chinese/Arabic}} inside {{Infobox officeholder}}. Have I understood this correctly? If so, I agree with OP that there's something wrong with the organization/naming of this template. I wouldn't label it racist, but I don't think Arabic (or any other non-Chinese language) logically belongs under {{Infobox Chinese}}, except if it's an Arabic name for something that is inherently Chinese (say the Arabic name of a mosque in China, for example). Phlar (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this was racism; this was originally intended to just have varieties of Chinese, but the purpose expanded since there were other relevant languages (such as Korean in Dongbei, Tibetan in Tibet, Uighur in Xinjiang, Portuguese in Macau, etc.) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

c param

Is this edit correct? [4] From the template doc, I would have thought we would only use the "c" param if "s" and "t" were the same. But I know very little about Chinese. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That particular edit at Soy sauce is incorrect, but yes, you correctly described the situation when {{{c}}} is to be used. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the Chinese infobox display both Simplified and Traditional Chinese for all Greater China and/or Sinosphere-related subjects, or should it only display the relevant ones per territory/area?

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Should_the_Chinese_infobox_display_both_Simplified_and_Traditional_Chinese_for_all_Greater_China_and/or_Sinosphere-related_subjects,_or_should_it_only_display_the_relevant_ones_per_territory/area? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese/Archive_3&oldid=1115720374"