Template talk:zh-cn

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Template:zh-cn

Template:zh-tw

These templates are language codes but they are not languages at all, they are scripts. The use of these templates has already generated categories like Category:Simplified Chinese literary terms, which are being discussed in the Beer Parlour. But separate from that, I believe these templates should not exist at all. —CodeCat 12:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, you are correct, as well as {{Hani}} for CJKV characters we have {{Hans}} and {{Hant}}. There is no way to use these nominated templates that I am aware of. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly delete. We have the good old distinction between language codes and script codes. These anomalies ("zh-cn" and "zh-tw", that look like language codes but are used to choose scripts) should be terminated. --Daniel 20:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the best way is to orphan them? —CodeCat 20:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Persistence, mainly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Would a search-and-replace from lang=zh-cn to lang=cmn|sc=Hans work at all? —CodeCat 20:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It makes the assumption that zh refers to Mandarin, but {{zh}} currently displays Mandarin already. There are some translations, see abort (permanent link). It seems logical to convert this to

* Chinese
*: Mandarin: {{t|cmn|$1|sc=Hant}}

But in the translations to check checked section. Not easy stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather automate as many of the fixes as possible first, so that we can more easily pick out the entries that need to be fixed manually later. —CodeCat 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue as well. Even if we deprecate and delete the templates, there are still lots of topical categories using the codes as a prefix: Category:zh-cn:All topics and Category:zh-tw:All topics. I'm not sure what to do with those. Should we merge them into the cmn: categories, or something else? I don't think {{topic cat}} currently supports script subcategories. —CodeCat 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, they will be deleted when they are empty! Seems that most of the uses refer to Mandarin, so changing them to lang=cmn might work. I think there's a way to detect section headers thet Yair rand mentioned on the Beer Parlour. If that's the case it would be relatively easy to do them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that when I add sc=Hant to a category boilerplate template, it says the category should be named '...in Traditional Han script', while it should be '...in traditional script' I think? How do I fix that? —CodeCat 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell us which one? It certainly seems to be like what you're trying to do ought to be possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a few categories in Category:Categories needing attention. —CodeCat 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the logic behind deprecating zh-cn and zh-tw. However, an adequate replacement solution still needs to be worked out. For example, in the entry 南郡, we have {{archaic}} setting lang to equal "zh-tw". From what I can tell, your objection above is that the current scheme confuses an orthography for a language. In order to implement your solution, all {{context}} templates would have to be altered to include an "sc" so that one could do something like {{archaic|lang=cmn|sc=hant|skey=十07}}. The resulting natural language category would be Category:Mandarin archaic terms in traditional script. Additionally, the entry also contains a manual category: Category:Simplified Chinese archaic terms, which would need to be changed to Category:Mandarin archaic terms in simplified script. What about pinyin entries? Should those be Category:Mandarin archaic terms in pinyin script, or should we simply use Category:Mandarin archaic terms for pinyin entries? -- A-cai 00:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Mandarin, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Pinyin is a romanization system, not a script, and it uses the Latin script. So the name Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Latin script would be more accurate than Category:Mandarin archaic terms in pinyin script. --Daniel 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken. I personally favor having a category called Category:Mandarin archaic terms that defaults to Pinyin spelling. That would avoid such terminological difficulties. -- A-cai 11:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A certain amount of "terminological difficulties" already exist since the division between scripts was implemented. By having Category:Mandarin nouns in simplified script, Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script and Category:Mandarin nouns, we require people to understand what are "Mandarin", "noun", "traditional" and "simplified" for the best experience in navigating them all.

Understanding them is not difficult at all: "Mandarin" and "noun" are basic words in English, and "traditional script" can be inferred to be a writing system. In addition, a person who knows Mandarin enough to want to navigate our Mandarin categories should reasonably know the differences of scripts.

On the other hand, if, hypothetically, our public is comprised of people who don't know how to discern scripts, or don't notice the separate categories for scripts, and we don't create Category:Mandarin nouns in Latin script, then people will only see the Latin script entries in Category:Mandarin nouns, thus possibly having the impression that entries in simplified/traditional script are absent. I don't think we should emphasize pinyin entries that way. --Daniel 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. CodeCat is right, of course, that this is not a linguistic difference, but merely an orthographic one; but since we're a written resource, orthography takes on a greater importance here than ideally it would. Our entries for terms are actually, on a lower level, entries for spellings; our categories of terms are actually, on a lower level, categories of spellings. Given that, I think it makes some sense to keep separate categories for Simplified and Traditional; a person looking through a Mandarin category is not interested in Mandarin-words-regardless-of-script, but Mandarin-words-in-the-script-that-they-know. And that means keeping separate language templates. (I don't actually feel very strongly about this; but if it's to be changed, I think it should be changed because the Chinese-language contributors have decided at Wiktionary:About Chinese languages to change it, not because of a general discussion among people with no stake in it.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I too support the old proposal of separating between categories of simplified and traditional scripts for Mandarin and a number of other languages. Naturally, I oppose the suggestion of merging them into category without any distinction of scripts.

I appreciate the simultaneous existence of Category:Mandarin nouns in simplified script and Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script, and I certainly don't want a mere Category:Mandarin nouns without any subdivision for scripts.

However, the codes "zh-cn" and "zh-tw" are redundant and superfluous. We can certainly keep the distinction between categories of different scripts, without having to use these codes. We already have good script codes from ISO to replace them:

• Traditional Han script is "Hant", so "zh-tw" is unnecessary.
• Simplified Han script is "Hans", so "zh-cn" is unnecessary.

The codes to be deprecated (zh-tw and zh-cn), and their templates to be deleted (Template:zh-cn and Template:zh-tw) are formatted as language codes, not script codes, and are relics from a time when Category:Simplified Chinese language and Category:Traditional Chinese language existed. These deprecations and deletions are a step closer to a more consistent, logical and intuitive system. --Daniel 03:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In looking at the {{context}} template, it seems that it would need to be modified so that if you have something like {{archaic|lang=cmn|script=hant|skey=十07}}, the category would say Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Simplified Han script (based on the current wording in the {{script}} template). -- A-cai 12:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Cai, it's unclear whether you support the idea of having "Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Simplified Han script" instead of "Category:Mandarin archaic terms in simplified script". Do you have an opinion about it?

I, personally, prefer the latter for consistency with Category:Simplified Han script. --Daniel 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have strong preference. I was merely using the wording currently found in the {{script}} template. I'm not sure if there would be any ill effects from removing "Han" from the template. -- A-cai 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem (well, issue) is that we don't allow Chinese as a language, but these categorize as 'Simplified Chinese' and 'Traditional Chinese' - they don't categorize in the same language as the section headers and other templates! Furthermore they categorize in a rejected language name. I think we should keep our current system of […] in simplified script. I don't think these templates can fit this system. Perhaps if they displayed 'Mandarin in simplified script' they would fit in, but no other Chinese languages could then use them. It seems to be to be at least possible that {{context}} would allow {{#ifeq:{{{sc}}}|Hans|[[Category:{{{lang|en|l=}} {{{cat}}} in simplified script]]}}. That's not exactly right; I'm just saying it's possible, not how to do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They have been also categorizing as "zh-cn" and "zh-tw" for ages. Just see Category:zh-cn:Anatomy, which is actually described as "The following is a list of Simplified Chinese terms related to anatomy." --Daniel 00:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's the possibility, I suppose of {{cmn-Hans}} and {{cmn-Hant}} if we really wanted to. I'd prefer just allow script parameters in {{context}} though. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the curious, there was a vote on this: WT:Votes/2009-12/Chinese categories. Afterwards I switched over the POS categories to not use the tag prefixes. The topic categories needed more work (which I proposed at Template talk:context#Allowing a script prefix), but as I didn't get much support I left them alone. I supportive of moves away from the tag-prefixes for categories (though I don't have much time to work on it). --Bequw → τ 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to consider what to name the final categories. The vote mentions adding 'in traditional script' and 'in simplified script', but many of the existing templates accept only script codes, which would create 'in Traditional Han script' and 'in Simplified Han script' instead. —CodeCat 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought of one more thing that might make a lot of sense. The codes hant and hans describe traditional and simplified scripts, respectively. However, one could argue that there is actually a third category, which is both. It might make sense to have an additional code, such as hants or simply han, meaning that the word is identical in both scripts. An example would be 明公. If a context template is added to the entry with the "both" option, the word would be added to both the traditional and the simplified category in question. -- A-cai 12:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

sc=Hani? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this again (boy has it really been over a year without any comment?). Looks like a very marginal fail; three in favor of deletion, one against. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)