Talk:Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: no consensus to merge. Proponents of the merge cited the short length and limited potential of this article. Opposers raised concerns about the length and readability of the target articles if the merge were to go forward. The number of opposers outnumbered, but I believe both sides presented strong arguments. However, there was enough opposition to prevent the merge. A rename was also suggested. Nearly one and a half years of discussion seems to be enough, so I'm closing this. Airplaneman ✈ 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Strong oppose: Not covered in main article, however inclusion in main article will make it needlessly cluttered. There should be detailed information of the merging of characters, as a separate offshoot article from the main Simplified Chinese article on WP. I do see that this page requires a big fixup. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this page is unlikely to ever exceed its current size and the main article isn't THAT big at the moment. Creating an offshoot for Simplification I can live with. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That however may make the article rather big. Use of the { {hidden}} expandable box template, maybe? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: the article on Simplified Chinese characters is pretty big already. It may be easier to keep this "Multiple association" article separate, and link to it as needed. Vmenkov (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: but I do think this needs to be renamed. Something like "Simplified-Traditional Chinese Convergence". Colipon+(Talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Colipon, and this page needs to be separated (with both Sim and Trad articles). This page also have valuable information for every Chinese. Tuanese (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the content of this article is lists. I assume it is intended to be exhaustive. an exhaustive list doesn't belong in Simplified Chinese characters, and readers of that article probably don't want it. Better to summarize on that article and link to this article. Asoer (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The merged article will not scan nicely - should be some stronger association between the two pages though. Philg88 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support: In favor of merger. The multiple to one conversion problem is a salient point and the article adds a very useful dimension to the whole discussion and as Akerbeltz said: "this page is unlikely to ever exceed its current size and the main article isn't THAT big at the moment." Terribleidea —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 22 October 2010 (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.

Specify criteria for what to include.

I suggest that you only include one variant for non-simplified characters. If not, you'll have a hard time deciding which variants to include. For example, 鬥鬪鬦鬭 are all the same grapheme, 並 and 竝 are the same grapheme, 回 and 囘, 裡 and 裏, etc. Whatever you do, stick to it, else the lists grouped by one-to-n is pointless. Asoer (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. 面 = 面麵麪麫 being classified under 1-to-4 comes off as an overstatement. Ironically, this list itself is ambiguous. There are plenty of variant characters in Chinese (like spellings in English). It didn't seem hard finding variants for 簫, even if they're mostly historical: wikt:Talk:簫#Alternate.3F. Nibiko (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

adding 萱

http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E8%90%B1/47807 I came across this character on nciku which hadn't been included. Nciku lists 4 separate traditional variants, but their character pages are set up in a manner as to not include the simplified version itself if it was also used in traditional texts. I've added it under "1 to 4," but it may be more correct to place it under "1 to 5," and include 萱 itself as one of the traditional characters. I do not know. 209.237.224.106 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

傑 and 杰

I believe that 傑 and 杰 should be added as a 1:2 mapping. While I know 傑 and 杰 can be considered the same character in terms of meaning, I have seen both forms used distinctly in traditional Chinese (primarily for names). In simplified, of course, only 杰 exists. Mingjai (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification. Sorry about the move to a bad name but the longer name extended past the name window and I did not realize that part of the name was still hidden. Consensus was to move, but the target was not clear. If the one selected is not right, please consider another discussion. When you don't propose a new name, it is sometimes more difficult to have the discussion get consensus on one name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese → A title that describes the subject without sounding like Chinglish — At the present time, the title of the article does not appear in the intro, so I assume that it's a descriptive title instead of an "official" standard term for the article's subject. If I'm correct in this assumption, we need to change the title to something that sounds like standard English: until I looked over the article, I couldn't understand what the article's topic is. Since I can't understand the current title, I don't know a better one; please pardon the suggestion that obviously describes the suggested title instead of being the suggested title. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment how about Multi-character to single character mappings between Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification? —Tamfang (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• If it weren't for the last section, this could be Simplified Chinese characters that correspond to multiple Traditional characters or something along those lines. That might still be reasonable, given that this is what the vast majority of the article covers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• This doesn't read like an article to me, it reads like a character map, which is a kind of list. The wikipedia article about Animals describes animals, it does not name every animal there is. Likewise, I think this article should be renamed, to something like List of Simplified Chinese characters with multiple Traditional character correlates or List of Simplified Chinese characters with multiple corresponding Traditional characters, and it should be a branch/supplement of either the Debate on Chinese simplification article or the Simplified Chinese characters article. If considered necessary, the bulky lead here can be moved into either of those articles and summarised more concisely here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• None of the proposed titles completely or clearly describes the contents of the article. Faced with the suggestions so far, support Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification simply because it's the most succinct. —  AjaxSmack  01:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been called "the King of Terse". —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to add a new colour code

The current page has the following colour codes where "Simplified characters are marked with a pink background, and Traditional characters with light blue." I would like to add another colour to indicate characters whicha are simply graphical variants with no distinction in definition. This should render the page clearer as to which characters are semantic or graphical variants. ----Koenfoo (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)