Module talk:Kangxi radical

Requested move 1 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Agreed as module creator who forgot. (closed by non-admin page mover) Remsense诉 12:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Module:Kxr → Module:Kangxi radical – To match template Template:Kangxi radical and per WP:TPN. Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2024 (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.

All-caps

Again, there appears to be no objective reason for this to be using SCREAMING ALL-CAPS. We have a guideline against this at MOS:ALLCAPS, and specifically glosses (of any level) are given in normal sentence case surrounded by single quotes, e.g. 'dragon', per MOS:SINGLE. We've been over this in some detail already at WT:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 8#Kangxi radical template/gloss; "I saw it this way in some book" is not sufficient grounds to conflict with two of our own style guidelines; an external author is not writing to the WP MoS but to their own idiosyncratic stylesheet (or that of some other publisher). What this style is confusingly conveying to readers is that these glosses are either acronyms or are being SHOUTED AT THE READER in an emphasis style used nowhere else on Wikipedia, and neither is appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Regarding your WP:REVTALK of "You could've at least sent me a talk page message. This very clearly is akin to the 'word class' use of small caps. i will add a parameter to turn it off." – We've already had extensive discussion about this, at multiple pages now. The conclusion of the previous discussion was, after you had no argument to offer other than having encountered this style in (apparently) two publication, was you saying "If presence in a couple relevant books is categorically not enough justification for the template's style, I will just change it." You failed to do so, and yes "presence in a couple [of] relevant books" is never sufficient to override any point of WP:MOS or we could not have a manual of style at all, since every point in it is ignored by multiple off-site publications.

How many times and at what length must be go over this? No one cares if something seems "akin to" something else to you subjectively; we permit extremely limited stylistic exception of various sorts for very particular things based on the presence of near-universal standardization on a particular style for something in pertient reliable sources. This does not magically "rub off" on faintly similar things just because you'd like it to. Two sources that do what you like does not establish a professional-consensus publishing record that essentially requires Wikipedia to go along with an off-site established convention or risk looking ignorant to specialists in a field and alienating them from editing here (the reason that WP does permit style variance when a standard against our style does provably exist for something in particular). In short, you are "fishing" for an excuse to evade a style rule simply because you don't like it.

Finally, an option to turn off something against our style manual isn't a fix. We should not even permit in any template an option to turn on something that is against our guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing that made me change my mind again (understanding I could've been more communicative about it but you always seem very busy) is the fact we use small caps for word classes in discussions of lexicography, morphology, and syntax—which is exactly the paradigm being imitated when my sources use small caps for radicals. It's not really an idiosyncratic innovation if you understand radicals in their native habitat as essentially section headers in a dictionary, often additionally imbued with semantic import. I never really feel like I convince anybody of these things though, so I'll do whatever makes me a team player. Remsense ‥ 论 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)