Wiktionary:Votes/2009-12/Chinese categories

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chinese categories[edit]

  • Voting on: Renaming the Chinese categories (all the Sinitic languages) to align more closely with Wiktionary-wide standards. See WT:AZH#Chinese Categories for details of the current usage. Changes would be:
  1. Topical categories would use the standard language code as a prefix and indicate the script variant using words.
    • Category:yue-cn:InsectsCategory:yue:Insects in simplified script
  2. Part-of-Speech categories will indicate the language and script using words.
    • Category:yue-cn:NounsCategory:Cantonese nouns in simplified script

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 09 January 2010 (UTC)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support If someone could speak more authoratively on the correct capitalisation of "simplified/traditional script", I'd be much obliged. --Bequw¢τ 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    "simplified" and "traditional" are just ordinary adjectives. One might treat "Traditional Script" as some sort of proper noun, but that is just a style, like writing "Grey Heron" for the grey heron. See the text of w:Traditional Chinese characters for examples, e.g. "traditional characters" but then "Traditional Chinese". Robert Ullmann 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry I didn't respond to your request to join the BP discussion, but yes, this was left un-resolved when A Cai and I re-worked the cats and templates; and yes, this is the right answer (;-) Robert Ullmann 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg I don't see why the category will be yue:Insects in simplified script rather than yue in simplified script:Insects (are the insects in simplified script?), but I'll vote in support, anyway. It certainly beats the current system AFAICT.​—msh210 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    To keep with the standard of having only the language code as the prefix. I agree it's not 100% clear, but I think it was the least bad solution. --Bequw¢τ 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC) unless and until someone like A-cai specializing in Chinese entries votes in support; if that happens I'll change my vote to support. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support w/EP. (If and when he changes his vote, if I don't notice, someone please change mine as well.) —RuakhTALK 19:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support A-cai 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I hope nobody minds, EncycloPetey and Ruakh said they would change their vote if I came out in support of the change. Therefore, I took the liberty of moving them to the support section. I put them ahead of me because I didn't want to be the fourth person to support the vote. Those of you who are familiar with Asian culture will understand why. For those who are unaware, the number four is considered unlucky in Asian culture (see: Tetraphobia). Sorry, EP, I figured you wouldn't mind being number four, since you deal more in Western languages :) -- A-cai 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    I don't mind at all. In Biblical numerics, four is the number of natural completeness, as well as being the number of characters in the Tetragrammaton. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC) As per discussion, seems to reflect consensus of Chinese editors.
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support - just under the wire. bd2412 T 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel. 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Kinamand 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)



  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Tooironic 10:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I would vote to support this proposal, but I'm not entirely convinced it wouldn't just create more unnecessary work for the mere half dozen or so active Chinese contributors. But I do agree with the proposition in principle. Tooironic 10:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    I would like to say that, even though I voted in favor of the above proposal, I share Tooironic's concerns about creating unnecessary busy work for ourselves. -- A-cai 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    I was planning on doing the conversion myself. After moving all the "*Topics" categories to "All topics" I got fairy efficient. There may be issues that I hope active users would be able to clarify for me, but the only burden I see for current active users would be remembering the new names. Is there a specific worry that we can plan around? --Bequw¢τ 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


  • Passes 10-0-1 Kinamand 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    The PoS categories should mostly be easy. The others will take some more work. Once I get things setup I'll request bot approval. --Bequw¢τ 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)