Template talk:cmn-noun

Suggestion

1. The use of italics in the long parenthetical line is confusing.
2. Having style (trad/simplified), pinyin, and pronunciations on the same line is confusing.
3. It would be much clearer to have each element, as we had it before (Style and Pronunciation) on a separate bulleted line, each line labeled as such, clearly, without italics: "Style," and "Pronunciation." The way the template is now, it's confusing enough for people who know some Chinese that total novices would be even more confused by the design of this template. Badagnani 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any pronunciations on the line, SAMPA and IPA (e.g.) go in the pronunciation section. "Style" is a meaningless term, I have no idea where it came from. It is script, or script form. Pinyin is a written script form of the language. Robert Ullmann 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my comment. Whatever the case, the template as it currently stands is not clear or easily usable, for the reasons described above. The long parenthetical line with italics creates a very confusing entry even for those with some knowledge of this language. Each element should be on a separate bulleted line, for maximum clarity. Badagnani 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Use all forms

I’ve added above a suggestion that one include all forms of a word; that is my understanding of the intention, based on the usage notes, but if this is a misunderstanding or shouldn’t be so prominently emphasized, please revert or reword.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

pin and pint

With modules, it should not be necessary to specify pin and pint, as one can be deduced from the other. A module to work out pint would I think be very easy to do. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Module:cmn-pron already does this:

{{#invoke:cmn-pron|py_transform|bùyóu fēnshuō|true|true}}

gives ''. There are other reasons why the parameter is kept for now. Wyang (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)