Talk:晩報

RFD discussion: April–June 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

晩報

晩 vs 晚. 晩 generally not used for Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is if you take into account usages of it in calligraphy. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I guess we should include these for traditional Chinese, but see these edits at 晩餐 and 今晩. The simplified Chinese version should not exist though, or at most only as a hard redirect (when there's no Japanese). @Wyang, what are your thoughts? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have made the relevant edits at 晚餐 and 今晚. Keep of course. The variant character 晩 is easily attested in calligraphic works. See here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as a variant. It's also accepted as a variant character in the Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants (教育部異體字字典), A01801-003. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should. This (晩) is a Japanese-only character, representing shinjitai of kyuujitai (晚). The reason Unicode uses two distinct codepoints for the same character is because the original JIS X 0208 Japanese codeset used two codepoints for these two, as is the case with most shinjitai and kyuujitai. It does not represent a variant in Chinese calligraphy, and it doesn't make sense to mix Japanese-only and Chinese Unicode characters. Wyang (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess if we think of it from a technical standpoint, it should not be kept, but if we look at the display of the character in most fonts, it is a valid Chinese character supported by ancient Chinese dictionaries like 類篇, 俗書刊誤, 字彙 and 字彙補. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Since it can be attested in calligraphy it should be kept. If we don't include that information at the entry for 晩, where else could we include it? There are no other characters that could represent this variant, and there are no rules stating that some characters can only be used in Japanese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

By similar loɡic one could say that ɡ, as the script form of g, should be included as an alternate spellinɡ for every word that contains a g. Never mind that ɡ is "technically" designated as for IPA. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is something that should be handled at the character page level, not applied to all compound pages containing this character. The reason they are called 異體字 not 正體字 (http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/shuo/fshuo5.htm) is that they are calligraphic variants of the same character not orthographic variants (i.e. different characters), according to the various regional character standardisation documents. We are not going to multiply the number of entries containing 晚 by ten to list all the possible variants of 晚. They are calligraphic variants, even though many are still commonly used in modern calligraphy. Our coverage on these should be limited to character pages, mainly using images of calligraphic variants (alongside forms in different calligraphic styles), and codepoints if applicable. Wyang (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough then. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation. I guess it makes sense to just have 晚 forms for compounds. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean 'evening paper'? Please explain. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

An evening paper is a newspaper that is printed and delivered in the evening. Before the internet, the biggest newspapers had a morning paper and an evening paper. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is comparable to g/ɡ, so it should not be kept. The "calligraphic" argument is also kind of weak; I can see usage of 语 in this 1886 book but 言语 is probably unacceptable as a "traditional variant". —suzukaze (t・c) 08:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I brought up the ancient dictionaries and the variant dictionary. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Nibiko (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

晩报

晩 is never used in simplified Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Nibiko (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)