Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (Chinese): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:03, 18 July 2002 editKtsquare (talk | contribs)Administrators11,347 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:57, 11 October 2024 edit undoEf5zak (talk | contribs)21 edits →Taiwan, Republic of China, or something else?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=yes}}
There are a number of special issues with regard to Chinese names....
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|at}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Hong Kong}}
{{WikiProject Macau}}
{{WikiProject China}}
{{WikiProject East Asia}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchive}}
|maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive index
|mask1=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive <#>
|mask2=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/monarchical titles
|mask3=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/languages and dialects
|mask4=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/PRC vs ROC
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{Shortcut|WT:NC-CHINA}}
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot II|age=200|collapsed=yes|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]
|index=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive index
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}


== Standardised Cantonese/Hakka romanisation ==
Characters


The article heavily focuses on the use of Mandarin to romanise Chinese characters and phrases, but there is no real guideline (aside from "follow what the sources say") as to the romanisation of other Sinitic languages. While there has been ample and lively discussion on this talk page and others about the ''scope'' of names that should be romanised with each language (which is still a constantly ongoing tug of war because of the inherent hyperpoliticisation), I don't see any real discussion about the standards of such, the way Mandarin transliteration is elaborated on. Even aside from the raw pronounciation, there are some differences in transliteration conventions in Cantonese and Mandarin (which is the example I'll stick to on basis of personal knowledge), e.g.:
All encyclopedia entries whose title is a Chinese names SHOULD include the Chinese characters and Pinyin representation for that name in the first sentence.
* Cantonese names tend to use a hyphen (]) vs Mandarin names that tend to concatenate given name (])
* Cantonese transliterations lean towards spacing by character (Sai Yeung Choi South Street) vs Mandarin spacing by phrase/word (Zhongshan Road)
Therefore, I feel like an alternative description of Cantonese or Hakka transliteration scheme also deserves a place in the guide. And if someone knows sufficient Taishanese, Shanghaiese, etc to make a separate transliteration guide for that, that would be very welcome too.
Alternatively, I feel like a better option might be to split this article into a disambig that redirects to three or four different transliteration guides for the various Sinitic languages commonly needed to be transliterated. ] (]) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
:Are there any standards out there to recommend? Otherwise we should continue to follow the sources, as in the above examples. ] 07:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
::There are definitely standards out there, although none have an overwhelming majority usage and one of the bigger problems is that the majority of speakers don’t know it. But it’s not exactly like the majority of English speakers follow MOS either, so I feel like that could be worked around. At the very least we could add something on identifying whether a source is in Cantonese, as opposed to an archaic name that might need to be changed to a pinyin transliteration. ] (]) 15:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Re Cantonese, as much as I don’t like it personally, the tendency is to move towards Jyutping, judging from its usage in dictionaries and language teaching materials. ] (]) 22:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
::::The problem with moving to Jyutping is that it would match virtually none of the already commonly used names. To take the above example: Kwok Fu-shing becomes Gwok Fu-sing, which is still recognisable to an HKer who knows who he is; Sai Yeung Choi South Street would become Sai Joeng Coi South Street, which honestly sounds more Korean than Cantonese. Given even pronunciations of certain words within the language aren't really standardised, I think the follow the sources approach for the actual pronunciations themselves is the best we can do; this discussion would more be about things like formatting as mentioned above, or of when to translate instead of transliterate, etc (e.g. in HK "University Road" vs in the Mainland "Daxue Road"; I haven't checked the latter exists but you get my point.) Moreover, it would be good to acknowledge that the Sinitic languages are not just Mandarin even in written form, in principle. ] (]) 06:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:I strongly support this suggestion. Even if there isn't a single majority usage atm, for the sake of readability Misplaced Pages should pick a standard and stick to it.
:I'm not very familiar with non-Mandarin romanizations and would really appreciate a guide. ] (]) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
::I'm fairly surprised there haven't been more RfCs over this and related topics, given the ire it usually attracts. As I said above, I don't think a full standard like there is for Mandarin is achievable or within our scope, but for one the claim in the project page that all written Chinese is Mandarin Chinese is patently false. Admittedly, I do not have any examples of it causing problems, so I could possibly be guilty of having a solution that needs a problem here. I would appreciate it if anyone had any examples to make a case however. ] (]) 06:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I think "Chinese names should be written in Hanyu Pinyin unless there is a more common romanization used in English" covers pretty well what we do and what we should do. ] is the standard placename in English for 油麻地 although it is not any of the commonly used romanizations of Cantonese nowadays. There seems to be even less of a standard for non-Mandarin than for Mandarin (where Taiwan and Singapore commonly use other systems than Hanyu Pinyin, with different systems used for different people: our coverage of Taiwan and people connected to it uses at least (simplified) Wade-Giles, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Hanyu pinyin and Tongyong pinyin). Misplaced Pages should not invent standards that are not used by the majority of sources. Better to stick to the sources than to surprise people by "standardized" article titles that are different from everywhere else. —] (]) 09:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree largely with what you said. As noted above, however, this is not really about the standard of romanticisation, which as you say is close to nonexistent. Other aspects covered in this MOS, such as word ordering and grouping, hyphenation, when to translate and when to transliterate etc can often be different; I'm not sure how many situations there are where these differences could not be supported with sources, but the differences certainly exist (e.g. according to the guide "Tuen Ma Line" should be written "Tuen Mun- Ma On Shan Line" if no sources proving common usage otherwise existed). These formatting rules are currently largely centered around Mandarin Chinese and it would perhaps be prudent to at least note different standards exist for sources in different Sinitic languages and, where possible, also list any such formatting standards in other languages. (As a hopefully uncontroversial example, I have added the name hyphenation rule to the relevant section.) ] (]) 10:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Right. Spaces need to be addressed properly, and what you wrote makes sense. Hong Kong placenames usually have single syllable words (]), Singapore has everything (], ]). Macao placenames are a wonderful mess (using various degrees of Portuguese-ness). Basically I would not bother trying to write a convention covering all of Greater China; Hanyu pinyin can be standardized, but anything else has local rules that aren't easily generalized. —] (]) 10:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Sources might not agree on which romanization system to use, but almost all are ''internally'' consistent. Why shouldn't Misplaced Pages be the same? Not choosing a romanization system is itself a choice, and it's a bad one. It's really hard to read and understand a work that mixes different systems willy-nilly.
::::Again, I suggest we pick one system and stick to it. The only exception would be if a clear majority (i.e., not just a plurality) of sources differ from whatever standard we pick. ] (]) 15:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Isn't that what we do? We prefer Hanyu pinyin (our "one system") unless sources do something else, which is a fairly common occurrence when talking about people or places not in Mainland China. Sources about Taiwanese politics do not use consistent romanization systems, but they typically all use the same romanization for the same person. Standard for ] is Gwoyeu Romatzyh, ] is Wade-Giles, ] isn't in any system I know. Others like ] or ] are generally known by adopted English names. Recognizable names (people won't recognize the names Ma Yingjiu, Li Denghui, Cai Yingwen, Song Chuyu, or Tang Feng) are generally better than internal consistency that won't be visible to the casual reader anyway. —] (]) 15:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::Pinyin is our standard for Mandarin, but I think what ] is suggesting is to decide on a standard for each of the other Chinese languages (Cantonese, Hakka, etc.). These languages don't follow the same rules of pronunciation, so it doesn't make sense to use Hanyu pinyin for them. ] (]) 16:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I am not convinced that a single standard for Cantonese makes sense. The "obvious" choice of Jyutping doesn't work for Hong Kong place names (a rather large set of examples) as demonstrated above. —] (]) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That's a good point. Do other Sinitic languages have similar large bodies of exceptions, or just Cantonese?
::::::::I still think it would be a good idea to define a default system for each Chinese language, even if there are major exceptions. Maybe we should focus on in-article standards rather than titles? Perhaps we should move this discussion to ]? ] (]) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a good point. In retrospect this thread would perhaps be better suited over there. If one of you want to do a move/copy to the talk over there, feel free to do so. ] (]) 03:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


== Language nomenclature ==
Chinese characters on the English Misplaced Pages should be encoded using HTML entities with ] numbers.
Big5 and GB encoded characters are acceptable as a draft for people who have no other means of entering characters but be converted to ] when it is possible.
After a Chinese text has been converted to Unicode, the Big5 or GB versions should be removed.


mirroring my post on ]:

Romanization

Romanization presents some difficult issues in that it is a highly political issue.
The most often used romanization is ].
Though many outside of the ] dislike it because of its association with that government, pinyin is the most correct known way of romanizing Mandarin Chinese words.

In general, Chinese entries should be in pinyin except when there is a more popularly used form in English (such as ]) or when the subject of the entry is likely to object to romanization in pinyin.
When an entry is not in pinyin form, there should be a link to the article from the pinyin form.

Names

Chinese names unlike English presents names last name first. Unlike other instances were this occurs, it is standard practice in English to also present a Chinese name last name first (i.e. Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping). Chinese names should be in pinyin unless there is a more common name used in English (i.e. Chiang Kai-Shek, Sun Yat-sen) or when the subject of the article is likely to prefer a non-pinyin phonetization as is likely the case with personages from Taiwan (i.e. Lee Tenghui).

The encyclopedia should reference the name more familar to most English readers.
For most historical figures the means that encyclopedia entry should reference the Chinese name rather than the English name (Soong Chuyu rather than James Soong for example), with a redirect from the English name.
However, there are exceptions for figures whose English name is more familar (Confucius) and for figures who were raised in non-Chinese societies and whose Chinese names are unfamilar (Vera Wang and Maya Lin).

Another special case is for a figure whose Chinese name is familar but used in English ordering (e.g. Wen Ho Lee). In this case, the primary entry should be under the English ordering with a redirect from the Chinese ordering.

When using pinyin for a Chinese name, pinyin spacing and capitalization conventions should be used. This includes keeping the last name separate and the given name capitalized with the different characters not indicated by spacing, hyphenization, or capitalization.

Names of Groups

The main entry for a Chinese group should be under the name most familar to English speakers. In some cases, this will be the translated name (e.g. Chinese Communist Party). In other cases, this will be the transliterated name (Kuomintang and ]). When the name is transliterated, the name should use the spelling conventionally used by English speakers (e.g. Kuomintang). Where this is not the pinyin transliteration there should be a link from the article from the pinyin name.

When a group uses a translated name, the Chinese characters should be included if the Chinese characters cannot be unambiguously derived from the English name or if providing the characters would provide any extra information. For example, the entry for President of the People's Republic of China should include Chinese characters because the name used for President (zhuxi) is not the standard term used for President, whereas including the Chinese characters for President of the Republic of China is redundant because it can be derived unambigiously derived from the English term.

Similarly Chinese characters should be included for the Democratic Progressive Party because the standard term used for the party (min-jin-dang) is a contraction of the full name (min-zhu jin-bu dang). Characters should also be included for National People's Congress because there are a number of different Chinese terms to translate Congress, and the entry should identify which one is used.

Names of Emperors

The general principle is to use the name which is most familar to Chinese readers.
This violates the Misplaced Pages principle that the name most familiar to English readers
should be used, because English readers are not usually familiar with any of the emperors.

1) Emperors before the Tang dynasty: use posthumous names. eg. Han Wu Di
2) Emperors between Tang dynasty and Ming dynasty: use temple ames eg. Tang tai zong
3) Emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasty: use era names (same as reign names) eg. kangxi
4) If there is a more common convention than using posthumous, temple or era names, then use it. eg. Cao Cao instead of Wei wu di. Or Sima Yi instead of Jin xuan di. This is often the case with founders of dynasties and the special case of Puyi.

Because these are reign names are not personal names, the correct phrasing for emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasty is the "Kangxi Emperor" rather than "Emperor Kangxi".


Political NPOV

Misplaced Pages entries should avoid taking sides on issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. In particular the word China should not be used to be synonymously with areas under current administration by the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. The term "Mainland China" is a non-political term to be can used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan, and "China proper" is a non-political term which can be used when making a comparison with Tibet. Although the used of the term "Manchuria" is considered by some to be somewhat objectionable when used in Chinese, it is largely considered a non-political and non-objectionable term when used in English.

Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of China. When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's confused political status.

Also note that there are potential landmines when using the term Chinese. In particular some find a distinction between "Chinese" and "Tibetans" or between "Chinese" and "Taiwanese" to be objectionable
and the terms "Han Chinese"/"Tibetans" and "Mainland Chinese"/"Taiwanese" are more politically neutral.

The term "Mainlander" poses some issues. It is sometimes ambigious whether this is refering to a resident of Mainland China or a member of the group that fled with the KMT to Taiwan in 1949. In refering to the latter group, the name is mildly objectionable when used in English and strongly objectionable when translated literally in Chinese. Preferred unambigous names for the two groups are "Mainland Chinese" and "wai sheng ren".

Hakka is the preferred name for that group even though the Mandarin word for that is something completely different.

In general, one should avoid using the term "Chinese" to be synonymous with the spoken Mandarin Chinese.

Excellent ideas on naming conventions! --]

---
Quote:
'''All entries with Chinese names should have the Chinese characters for the name included in unicode.'''

One must have a Chinese Communicator installed on a PC to do so. When the document was typed on computers of public domains which only offers IME (like Microsoft IME that doesn't convert Chinese characters in Unicode), presenting every single character in unicode is a tiresome work since typers have to search for them. I'm against this proposal. By the way while using Pinyin romanization, readers who don't know Chinese characters at all can search for the them if they have a Communicator or dictionary handy. -- ]
---- ----
his applies to various related articles in ], in clarifying the often-conflated categories. Here's how I see it:
I don't think I was clear in my proposal. I've clarified it a bit.


* Chinese ''characters'' are the logographs originally used to constitute the morphemes in the Old Chinese ''writing system'', which is, perhaps unhelpfully, also called 'Chinese characters'.
----
* A writing system includes orthographic rules and conventions, in this case relating to semantics and phonology in various spoken languages. a set of characters with expected meanings and pronunciations is an array of conventions as such.
Quote:
* However, I don't think Traditional and Simplified characters constitute separate writing systems per se, even though there are mergers in character variants from the former to the latter.
'''Chinese characters on wikipedia should be encoded using HTML entities with unicode numbers. Use of
* Kanji, for example, is a set of characters within the greater Japanese writing system, using Chinese characters.
either 8-bit characters or non-unicode encodings such as big5 or gb should be discouraged. Unicode is preferably because it has the highest available and also avoids political issues.'''
* I wish we could call these character sets 'scripts', but that word is largely claimed by the systematic graphical (ish) styles such as ] and ].
] (]) 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


:The native word used to differentiate Traditional and Simplified character forms is usually 字體 (character form), although typically encountered in the opposite order, as in 繁體字. The word differentiating clerical script and regular script, in contrast, is 書. I'm not sure if any of this is helpful, or really what the question here is supposed to be, but I'd be glad to type more Chinese if the question can be clarified. ] (]) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
As I said earlier, typing every character in unicode is tiresome. Although I agree that big5 and gb encoding may invoke political issue simply because of Traditional and Simplified Chinse, readers who are proficienct in Chinese will feel more comfortable typing more. If one doesn't know Chinese characters at all, the typers can just list the Pinyin romanization without accompanied by any sort of Chinese encoding, saving time for both the typers and readers. Then anyone knowing the correct Chinese character should then do the encoding, avoiding any confusion. ]
::Actually maybe 字形 (character form) is more common than 字體 (character form). I'm probably a little mixed up in my modern technical vocabulary. ] (]) 07:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Oh my gosh I thought this was ]; this doesn't have to take the form of a question at all. My goodness it might be bedtime. ] (]) 07:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
::very helpful! i guess the default term for 'simplified' and 'traditional' might be 'character form', as opposed to 'writing system' or 'script' or 'character set'? ] (]) 18:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::"Character set" makes sense when you're talking about computing, and maybe statistical analysis. "Character form" ("Simplified form", "Japanese form", etc) is probably the closest term for general linguistic description. ] (]) 20:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


==Taiwan, Republic of China, or something else?==
----
{{user|Ef5zak}} made an to ], changing "the Republic of China" to "Taiwan". What is the appropriate word or phrase in this situation? If it matters, it's about a government action to adopt a modified Gregorian calendar, not primarily about the geographic location. ] (]) 01:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Quote:


:Given it refers to the current country, that seems a normal use for Taiwan. ] (]) 02:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Names of Emperors'''
::I agree. In this context, "Taiwan" is clearer, more natural, and more widely understandable than "the Republic of China". Similarly, the same sentence refers to "North Korea" rather than "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 03:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I likewise agree with this position. I also believe that Taiwan better understood to those who may not have an understanding of the geopolitical situation of Taiwan. ] (]) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
'''Emperors before the Ming dynasty should be refered to by the posthumous temple name rather than by reign name. Where there is any ambiguity, the temple name should be preceded by the name of the
dynasty.'''

Okay.... I partially agree on what you have said but let's make it more clear. Emperors before the Tang dynasty should be referred to by the posthumous name. Temple name should be used for emperors between Tang dynasty and Ming dynasty. There is a difference between temple names and posthumous names. See the guide on ] for the difference. But if you were saying emperors before Ming should be referred using posthumous '''AND''' temple name, that's plain wrong. An exmaple, give me the temple name of Han Wu Di. Nobody would use it except those wrote Hanshu like Ban gu and his disciples. Or give me the posthumous name (not the temple name) of Tang Gao Zu. ]

Quote:

'''Personal names for emperors should not be used except to refer to the founders of dynasties who
used personal names before becoming emperor (e.g. Liu Bang) and except for the special case of the
last emperor Puyi whose reign name and temple name are unfamiliar.'''

The overall idea is going by the most common convetion which is pretty fimilar to those accustomed Chinese. The most common convention is use the name which is most familar to Chinese readers.
This violates the Misplaced Pages principle that the name most familiar to English readers
should be used, because English readers are not usually familiar with any of the emperors.

1) Emperors before the Tang dynasty: use posthumous names. eg. Han Wu Di
2) Emperors between Tang dynasty and Ming dynasty: use temple ames eg. Tang tai zong
3) Emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasty: use era names (same as reign names) eg. kangxi
4) If there is a more common convention than using posthumous, temple or era names, then use it. eg. Cao Cao instead of Wei wu di. Or Sima Yi instead of Jin xuan di. ]

----
People who don't know Chinese
"All encyclopedia entries whose title is a Chinese names SHOULD include the Chinese characters and Pinyin representation for that name in the first sentence."

Suggested rule: Those who do not know any Chinese MAY ignore this rule when starting a new article; however, they SHOULD ask for help in the Summary: field when submitting the text. --]

----
Just a minor note, would it be better '''copy''' other people's entries to the top than '''cut''' the whole paragraph out. I just read some of my entries some sentences of which looks wierd with those cuts.
]

Latest revision as of 12:57, 11 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (Chinese) page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHong Kong
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong
Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

Collaboration needed

Improvement needed

Cleanup needed

Image needed (347)

Destub needed

Deorphan needed

Page creation needed

Miscellaneous tasks

WikiProject iconMacau
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau
WikiProject iconChina
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives

/Names
/monarchical titles
/languages and dialects
/PRC vs ROC
/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9
/Archive 10
/Archive 11
/Archive 12
/Archive 13


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Standardised Cantonese/Hakka romanisation

The article heavily focuses on the use of Mandarin to romanise Chinese characters and phrases, but there is no real guideline (aside from "follow what the sources say") as to the romanisation of other Sinitic languages. While there has been ample and lively discussion on this talk page and others about the scope of names that should be romanised with each language (which is still a constantly ongoing tug of war because of the inherent hyperpoliticisation), I don't see any real discussion about the standards of such, the way Mandarin transliteration is elaborated on. Even aside from the raw pronounciation, there are some differences in transliteration conventions in Cantonese and Mandarin (which is the example I'll stick to on basis of personal knowledge), e.g.:

  • Cantonese names tend to use a hyphen (Kwok Fu-shing) vs Mandarin names that tend to concatenate given name (Xi Jinping)
  • Cantonese transliterations lean towards spacing by character (Sai Yeung Choi South Street) vs Mandarin spacing by phrase/word (Zhongshan Road)

Therefore, I feel like an alternative description of Cantonese or Hakka transliteration scheme also deserves a place in the guide. And if someone knows sufficient Taishanese, Shanghaiese, etc to make a separate transliteration guide for that, that would be very welcome too. Alternatively, I feel like a better option might be to split this article into a disambig that redirects to three or four different transliteration guides for the various Sinitic languages commonly needed to be transliterated. Fermiboson (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there any standards out there to recommend? Otherwise we should continue to follow the sources, as in the above examples. Kanguole 07:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
There are definitely standards out there, although none have an overwhelming majority usage and one of the bigger problems is that the majority of speakers don’t know it. But it’s not exactly like the majority of English speakers follow MOS either, so I feel like that could be worked around. At the very least we could add something on identifying whether a source is in Cantonese, as opposed to an archaic name that might need to be changed to a pinyin transliteration. Fermiboson (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Re Cantonese, as much as I don’t like it personally, the tendency is to move towards Jyutping, judging from its usage in dictionaries and language teaching materials. Pentaxem (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem with moving to Jyutping is that it would match virtually none of the already commonly used names. To take the above example: Kwok Fu-shing becomes Gwok Fu-sing, which is still recognisable to an HKer who knows who he is; Sai Yeung Choi South Street would become Sai Joeng Coi South Street, which honestly sounds more Korean than Cantonese. Given even pronunciations of certain words within the language aren't really standardised, I think the follow the sources approach for the actual pronunciations themselves is the best we can do; this discussion would more be about things like formatting as mentioned above, or of when to translate instead of transliterate, etc (e.g. in HK "University Road" vs in the Mainland "Daxue Road"; I haven't checked the latter exists but you get my point.) Moreover, it would be good to acknowledge that the Sinitic languages are not just Mandarin even in written form, in principle. Fermiboson (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I strongly support this suggestion. Even if there isn't a single majority usage atm, for the sake of readability Misplaced Pages should pick a standard and stick to it.
I'm not very familiar with non-Mandarin romanizations and would really appreciate a guide. SilverStar54 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm fairly surprised there haven't been more RfCs over this and related topics, given the ire it usually attracts. As I said above, I don't think a full standard like there is for Mandarin is achievable or within our scope, but for one the claim in the project page that all written Chinese is Mandarin Chinese is patently false. Admittedly, I do not have any examples of it causing problems, so I could possibly be guilty of having a solution that needs a problem here. I would appreciate it if anyone had any examples to make a case however. Fermiboson (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I think "Chinese names should be written in Hanyu Pinyin unless there is a more common romanization used in English" covers pretty well what we do and what we should do. Yau Ma Tei is the standard placename in English for 油麻地 although it is not any of the commonly used romanizations of Cantonese nowadays. There seems to be even less of a standard for non-Mandarin than for Mandarin (where Taiwan and Singapore commonly use other systems than Hanyu Pinyin, with different systems used for different people: our coverage of Taiwan and people connected to it uses at least (simplified) Wade-Giles, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Hanyu pinyin and Tongyong pinyin). Misplaced Pages should not invent standards that are not used by the majority of sources. Better to stick to the sources than to surprise people by "standardized" article titles that are different from everywhere else. —Kusma (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree largely with what you said. As noted above, however, this is not really about the standard of romanticisation, which as you say is close to nonexistent. Other aspects covered in this MOS, such as word ordering and grouping, hyphenation, when to translate and when to transliterate etc can often be different; I'm not sure how many situations there are where these differences could not be supported with sources, but the differences certainly exist (e.g. according to the guide "Tuen Ma Line" should be written "Tuen Mun- Ma On Shan Line" if no sources proving common usage otherwise existed). These formatting rules are currently largely centered around Mandarin Chinese and it would perhaps be prudent to at least note different standards exist for sources in different Sinitic languages and, where possible, also list any such formatting standards in other languages. (As a hopefully uncontroversial example, I have added the name hyphenation rule to the relevant section.) Fermiboson (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Right. Spaces need to be addressed properly, and what you wrote makes sense. Hong Kong placenames usually have single syllable words (Chek Lap Kok), Singapore has everything (Ang Mo Kio, Yishun). Macao placenames are a wonderful mess (using various degrees of Portuguese-ness). Basically I would not bother trying to write a convention covering all of Greater China; Hanyu pinyin can be standardized, but anything else has local rules that aren't easily generalized. —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Sources might not agree on which romanization system to use, but almost all are internally consistent. Why shouldn't Misplaced Pages be the same? Not choosing a romanization system is itself a choice, and it's a bad one. It's really hard to read and understand a work that mixes different systems willy-nilly.
Again, I suggest we pick one system and stick to it. The only exception would be if a clear majority (i.e., not just a plurality) of sources differ from whatever standard we pick. SilverStar54 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Isn't that what we do? We prefer Hanyu pinyin (our "one system") unless sources do something else, which is a fairly common occurrence when talking about people or places not in Mainland China. Sources about Taiwanese politics do not use consistent romanization systems, but they typically all use the same romanization for the same person. Standard for Ma Ying-jeou is Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Lee Teng-hui is Wade-Giles, Tsai Ing-wen isn't in any system I know. Others like James Soong or Audrey Tang are generally known by adopted English names. Recognizable names (people won't recognize the names Ma Yingjiu, Li Denghui, Cai Yingwen, Song Chuyu, or Tang Feng) are generally better than internal consistency that won't be visible to the casual reader anyway. —Kusma (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Pinyin is our standard for Mandarin, but I think what Fermiboson is suggesting is to decide on a standard for each of the other Chinese languages (Cantonese, Hakka, etc.). These languages don't follow the same rules of pronunciation, so it doesn't make sense to use Hanyu pinyin for them. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not convinced that a single standard for Cantonese makes sense. The "obvious" choice of Jyutping doesn't work for Hong Kong place names (a rather large set of examples) as demonstrated above. —Kusma (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. Do other Sinitic languages have similar large bodies of exceptions, or just Cantonese?
I still think it would be a good idea to define a default system for each Chinese language, even if there are major exceptions. Maybe we should focus on in-article standards rather than titles? Perhaps we should move this discussion to WP:MOSCHINA? SilverStar54 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. In retrospect this thread would perhaps be better suited over there. If one of you want to do a move/copy to the talk over there, feel free to do so. Fermiboson (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Language nomenclature

mirroring my post on Talk: Chinese characters:

his applies to various related articles in Category: Chinese characters, in clarifying the often-conflated categories. Here's how I see it:

  • Chinese characters are the logographs originally used to constitute the morphemes in the Old Chinese writing system, which is, perhaps unhelpfully, also called 'Chinese characters'.
  • A writing system includes orthographic rules and conventions, in this case relating to semantics and phonology in various spoken languages. a set of characters with expected meanings and pronunciations is an array of conventions as such.
  • However, I don't think Traditional and Simplified characters constitute separate writing systems per se, even though there are mergers in character variants from the former to the latter.
  • Kanji, for example, is a set of characters within the greater Japanese writing system, using Chinese characters.
  • I wish we could call these character sets 'scripts', but that word is largely claimed by the systematic graphical (ish) styles such as clerical script and regular script.

Remsense (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The native word used to differentiate Traditional and Simplified character forms is usually 字體 (character form), although typically encountered in the opposite order, as in 繁體字. The word differentiating clerical script and regular script, in contrast, is 書. I'm not sure if any of this is helpful, or really what the question here is supposed to be, but I'd be glad to type more Chinese if the question can be clarified. Folly Mox (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually maybe 字形 (character form) is more common than 字體 (character form). I'm probably a little mixed up in my modern technical vocabulary. Folly Mox (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh my gosh I thought this was WP:RD/L; this doesn't have to take the form of a question at all. My goodness it might be bedtime. Folly Mox (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
very helpful! i guess the default term for 'simplified' and 'traditional' might be 'character form', as opposed to 'writing system' or 'script' or 'character set'? Remsense (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
"Character set" makes sense when you're talking about computing, and maybe statistical analysis. "Character form" ("Simplified form", "Japanese form", etc) is probably the closest term for general linguistic description. Folly Mox (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan, Republic of China, or something else?

Ef5zak (talk · contribs) made an edit to Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, changing "the Republic of China" to "Taiwan". What is the appropriate word or phrase in this situation? If it matters, it's about a government action to adopt a modified Gregorian calendar, not primarily about the geographic location. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Given it refers to the current country, that seems a normal use for Taiwan. CMD (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. In this context, "Taiwan" is clearer, more natural, and more widely understandable than "the Republic of China". Similarly, the same sentence refers to "North Korea" rather than "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I likewise agree with this position. I also believe that Taiwan better understood to those who may not have an understanding of the geopolitical situation of Taiwan. Ef5zak (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: