First, congratulations and personal thanks to whoever is adding Chinese characters to the Wiktionaries! :)
Now, a small correction. The article describes its title character, "维" as having unfortunately "stroke number: 11". By contrast, the character does have a "stroke count" of 11 (strokes). The phrase, "stroke number" is meaningful, but does not apply here; its meaning would approximate the radical number of the single-stroke character radicals.
In Chinese, I am sure the information is stated correctly and the error is in translation to the English phrase, "stroke number". The difference is the well-known one between cardinal and ordinal numbers: between one and first, two and second, etc. (In Chinese: between yi-ge and di-yi, liang-ge and di-er, san-ge and di-san, etc.)
As another example, using English, a hand's fingers can be said to have the "digit-numbers" one through five. Never in English can the phrase, "digit-number" refer to a hand size of five fingers, but "digit-count" could. (To those more mathematically and less verbally inclined: "Be gone!") ;-)
This error is a barrier to people's entry and a significant, if you will, source of confusion. Its significance is multiplied of course by the future, reasonable number of Chinese character entries in English- and other relevant-language Wiktionaries and by the elapsed time the error goes uncorrected. In all Chinese single character entries in the English Wiktionary, the confusing phrase, "stroke number" should be changed to "stroke count", regardless how many erroneous Chinese character entries exist.
Perhaps a computer program (robot) could be made to change this phrase in all the entries.
Of course on this point, the Wiktionaries presently of certain other languages could be correct.
Georgesawyer 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this message is supposed to mean. Tooironic 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Can it be added in which contexts the various Mandarin readings are used? Also, where do the two "beng" readings come from? Unihan does not give either. 220.127.116.11 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The beng readings must be a mistake. I will fix that now. Tooironic 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)