Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

collapse broken?

I tried adding the collapse attribute to the Taiwan article but in my firefox browser it had no affect. The triple infoboxes really interfere with the right side photos and I wanted to check how much it would help by collapsing the last two infoboxes. Is it broken? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. I think that this template lost the collapse functionality when it was converted to use {{infobox}}. {{Infobox Chinese}} is an empty undecorated container filled with embedded 'child' infoboxen. As an experiment, I have tweaked the infobox in the section above to include |collapse=yes and added these lines to {{Infobox Chinese/sandbox}}:

|above={{#ifeq:{{{collapse|}}}|yes|{{{title|}}}}}
|bodyclass={{#ifeq:{{{collapse|}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{title|}}}|collapsible collapsed}}}}

This adds an 'above' title to the container using the same text as |title= when |collapse=yes – you need that so that there will be a place to hold the show/hide links. The 'above' title is not displayed when |collapse= is empty, omitted, or set to anything but yes. You can look at Template:Infobox Chinese/testcases to see that this change does not disrupt infoboxen that don't set |collapse=yes.

If I can figure out how to do it, it might be best to add styling to that 'above' title and remove the title line that is provided by the header child infobox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not so hard as I thought it might be. Changed ~/sandbox to:

|above={{{title|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}
|bodyclass={{#ifeq:{{{collapse|}}}|yes|collapsible collapsed}}
|abovestyle=background-color:{{{headercolor|#b0c4de}}}

Disabled the code that created the top-most line in the infobox (lines 943, 944, 954, 955 at function ibox_mln_header() in Module:Infobox multi-lingual name/sandbox) so now there is only one 'header' line; cf. the infoboxen at Template:Infobox Chinese/testcases. You will notice that the 'above' title has bold font. If that is unacceptable, we can add font-weight: normal; to |abovestyle=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC) revised |bodyclass= to remove |title= test—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In looking at your example in the above section, that's exactly what we want. I'm not saying we will use it at the Taiwan article but, since it was in the formal documentation page, we wanted the option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This should now be live.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

|showflag=tp

Infobox Chinese/Archive 5
Traditional Chinese	青埔站
Tongyong Pinyin	Cīngpǔ Chejhàn
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Qīngpǔ Chēzhàn Bopomofo ㄑㄧㄥ ㄆㄨˇ ㄔㄜ ㄓㄢˋ Wade–Giles Ch'ing1p'u3 Ch'ê1chan4 Tongyong Pinyin Cīngpǔ Chejhàn

Hello- I would like to display Tongyong Pinyin for the subway stations of Kaohsiung when they are directly connected to the spelling of the word used in the official name of the station. Can this be done? How hard to do would this be? If I wanted to do it myself, how would I do it? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

done in the sandbox.

{{Infobox Chinese/sandbox|showflag=tp|t=青埔站|p=Qīngpǔ Chēzhàn|w=Ch'ing<sup>1</sup>p'u<sup>3</sup> Ch'ê<sup>1</sup>chan<sup>4</sup>|tp=Cīngpǔ Chejhàn|bpmf=ㄑㄧㄥ ㄆㄨˇ ㄔㄜ ㄓㄢˋ}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think it would be wise to implement this change. In this way, a clearer indication of the origin of the spelling of words can be made. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This should now be live.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

module update

I have just updated Module:Infobox multi-lingual name and Module:Infobox multi-lingual name/data. This update makes changes per these discussions:

Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese/Archive_4#Quick_edit

Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese#collapse_broken?

Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese#|showflag=tp

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The update seems to break embedded uses of the template, e.g. in Chen Li (scholar). Kanguole 07:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have fixed it. (Though I guess the double vertical bar isn't required.) Kanguole 08:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Is it on purpose you are using a sandbox version of the module? (Module:Infobox multi-lingual name/sandbox) Christian75 (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus for this requested move. This RM has been relisted thrice and the opinions are too spread apart to enact any direct resolution. It's preferable to pick new options and start over, maybe in a RfC format. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 17:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox Chinese → Template:Infobox transliteration – The template is now used for a wide variety of languages and the original name of Infobox Chinese is no longer appropriate. I suggest Infobox transliteration as the new title, but there may be better options. --Trialpears (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Note: although there is agreement that the present title is unsuitable, there is no consensus as to what the new title should be. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support pretty much any change away from the current title. This template long ago expanded beyond its original usage and IIRC the title has frequently been an issue when discussing possible mergers with other non-Chinese templates. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support the mere fact that it is not only Chinese transliterations in the infobox necessitates this change. Agree with the above, almost anything else would be more appropriate. Kdm852 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the proposed name is different. This infobox doesn't come anywhere near being a universal transliterator, as there are tons of articles with names and terms that aren't in the Latin alphabet that it isn't used on – Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, etc. Maybe something like "Asian languages"? Also, be warned that the WikiProject Japan folks are pretty feisty and may not take kindly to encroachment on their "turf".  White Whirlwind  咨  23:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  White whirlwind I'll happily add more scripts, but think it will be easier to discuss it without this unfortunate name. Asking WikiProject India what features they want added to Infobox Chinese is sure to raise questions, while having that discussion with Infobox transliteration would be easier. There's also already support for Arabic btw. Feel free to suggest alternative names, I'll support basically anything. --Trialpears (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose without some sort of qualifier for Asian languages per White Whirlwind. Even then, the various Indian subcontinent scripts are mostly not covered by this template. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Feel free to suggest an alternative. Perhaps we can come up with something better, but I don't see how the proposed title implies that this is a "universal transliterator" or that other things couldn't be added to it. PC78 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not only Chinese / Asian languages also I do not really see the purpose of the box if there is a Languages on the side bar linking to different wikipedia. --Cs california (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I politely suggest you have completely missed the point. The Languages in the side bar are for people who want to read the article in a different language; this infobox is about supplying information in English about Chinese-related languages. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This has long ago stopped being only used for Chinese and as can be seen by the pending merge with {{Infobox name module}} already handles much more languages. The only reason this hasn't changed yet, as that a group of editors are WP:OWNing this template and blocking any name change. --Gonnym (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rename this to "Infobox East-Southeast Asian" or something similar, there are the Meiteis, the Nagas, the Mizos, the Yakuts, the Kyrgyz and the Kazakh. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose (very strongly): if changed to "infobox transliteration" (or similar) this says it is (a? the?) infobox for transliteration, and before long someone would add Cyrillic or Arabic, and there would be a lot of unproductive confusion. Of course there *could* be an infobox for (all) transliteration, but this would have to be thought out very carefully, in a way crossing too many different fields of expertise for the Wiki method to work, frankly. But there is a clear need for an infobox that captures a very significant commonality: ideally it might be called "Infobox 漢字", except for the obvious problem. It's about the fact that (e.g.) 日本 is the Japanese name for Japan, and it's also the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese name for Japan. Unfortunately there is no easy way in English to refer to this script other than by picking a language that uses it, and using that particular language's name (kanji, hanzi etc). It would be a good idea to clean it up, and remove some of the fundamentally unrelated languages that have crept in. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The most entire function of the template still focus on Chinese language/dialect and article that had bilingual Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Japanese origins. Unless the template code was overhaul to cover the language of the world, then it should use the title "transliteration". transliteration of Serbian/Yugoslav/Russian language are "transliteration" too (either Cyrillic from/to Latin alphabet ) Matthew hk (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Matthew hk Russian and Arabic are already supported and the current name has been problematic when trying to consolidate several similar templates as seen in this merger discussion. I think a major reason for it mainly being used on Chinese articles is the name since it's not at all intuitive to use infobox Chinese on an article not about something China related. The template scope is also not static with me intending to ask relevant WikiProjects if they would like support for their language added. --Trialpears (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The context of the template is not meant for all language of the world. For example every African and Oceanic language. Why Russian is relevant because Vladivostok and other article existed. Vladivostok had alt name based on Manchu and Chinese. Why Serbian is not relevant because the template is not meant for that use. We don't need to add foreign language name in en-wiki unless relevant. Matthew hk (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, unless people want to further overhaul the template, so that it is similar to the relationship of Template:Cite news and base template Template:citation. Matthew hk (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case would you support a compromise such as Infobox East Asian transliteration? --Trialpears (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the only reason Cyrillic and Arabic are involved are because a Chinese language uses those as its native script. Dungan is spoken by a group of Islamic Chinese offshoots living in Russia, who once used Arabic script, and who the Communists forced to change to Cyrillic. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose proposed name is bad. This transliteration box is specifically for East Asian languages from the Sinitic World, who have shared the Hanzi/Hantu/Kanji/Hangul script. Thus any proposed name for this box should indicate that its primary purpose is cross-language coordination from the original base term in Han to the current terminology in the current script (such as pre-WWII Japanese kanji to modern Kanji-Kana mixed uses). As pan-East-Asian concepts are imported to the English world, they come from a variety of regions, so will also have multiple source names, needing facilitation in indication of source origins. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support rename and suggest addition of more languages. I disagree with some of the oppose rationales that "Infobox Transliteration" must support all languages. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is acceptable to have a smaller pool of languages now and add more later. The template is already being used in many articles, which are not related to Chinese language/scripts. It makes sense to change the name and add support for various languages. For example, in Ireland related articles, this template could be used to render the Gaelic and English names. If Infobox Transliteration is not accepted, I suggest Infobox Names.(arrived from notice on WT:INDIA)--DreamLinker (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This infobox is used for Chinese-related articles, wherein many topics may have broader relevance to the Sinosphere and thus accommodates that. This infobox certainly isn't intended to be used as an universal transliterator, which is a misuse. Its base is Chinese. Note. You would need to overhaul this template to preserve this Chinese-focused usage (with Chinese at top) of the template, as your proposal to generalize this template may disregard this current and intended design for the Chinese-focused usage of the template. --Cold Season (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

template does not support alternative Japanese names

limitation encountered while editing Avīci; proceeded with edit using tentative parameter names kanji2, hiragana2, romaji2 in case of future support, despite current lack of functionality; please resolve; thank you sincerely – 162.197.231.118 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Respect for local languages: let Uyghur be first in some instances (just like Cantonese or traditional character can be first sometimes)

Infobox Chinese/Archive 5
Uyghur name
Uyghur	چىرا ناھىيىسى‎
Transcriptions Latin Yëziqi Chira Nahiyisi Yengi Yeziⱪ Qira Nah̡iyisi SASM/GNC Qira Nahiyisi Siril Yëziqi Чира Наһийиси
Chinese name
Simplified Chinese	策勒县
Traditional Chinese	策勒縣
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Cèlè Xiàn

Hello all- in all signs and websites in Xinjiang, the Uyghur language form of a location, etc. is written above Chinese characters. I would like to advise that we immediately allow for the adoption of a similar procedure with respect to this infobox. For example, Qira County in Xinjiang is more than 98% Uyghur and the county name is officially transliterated via Uyghur (not Mandarin) into English. All road signs and websites put Uyghur above Chinese characters. This is a sign of respect for the people who are living in these areas that their language, while not the language of the majority of the residents of China, is not to be ignored or seen as secondary or unimportant in their home. Any opinions against this need to show why Mandarin is more important or relevant in a 98% Uyghur county than Uyghur. Let me know what you all think of this. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Imagine if you were someone from Xinjiang that wanted to write about your area on Wikipedia. Wikipedia becomes hostile to your perspective, anti-your culture, anti-your language and anti-your reality by ordering things this way. We are promoting a Han chauvinist perspective by forcing Mandarin to be on top in this infobox. That sucks and Wikipedia's coverage of Xinjiang can't really progress in such an unfriendly environment. Let local languages be allowed to be listed first in this infobox. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

already exists.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Oh, thanks! Hope you liked the lecture anyway! Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Order of transcriptions

Is there any parameter to set the order of transcriptions, in the same manner as, for example, the |first=t,j parameter in {{lang-zh}}? 219.76.24.202 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It has (or had) , |showflag= parameter (read the Template:Infobox Chinese/doc, for HK i think jyp / yjp is fine , can't remember are theere yj and jy existe or not. y for Cantonese Yale not Mandarin Yale, j stands for Jyutping ) and |order= (only use ts or st). Matthew hk (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Add Meyer–Wempe?

For Michael Chong I found a Meyer–Wempe transcription but it seems the template doesn't support it. Maybe it should be added? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, Looks entirely appropriate to me. Will do if noone objects in the next few days. --Trialpears (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate simplified Chinese in Taiwan articles

Chinese (so-called 'traditional Chinese') is a part of Mainland China articles because those 'traditional' characters reflect historical usage. They are also a part of Mainland China dictionaries like Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian and Cihai. However, simplified Chinese is not part of the Taiwan situation, at least in the case of characters developed or pushed post-1949. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you want to see simplified form names for Taiwan locations, you can look at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary and does include that information. Therefore, I think I'm making a positive move for Wikipedia in removing simplified Chinese from pages like this [1] (and in this case adding Tongyong Pinyin, the source for the names of the metro stations). If there are objections, let me know. TLDR:[2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Per the information on this page [3], I have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to display the form "中华民国" on the Taiwan article page and have made the following edit: [4]. I sincerely welcome discussion on the issue. I believe this is a move toward a neutral article. Before my edit, the article was pro-PRC biased. Now the article is merely stating what the ROC government states about itself. Again, I welcome discussion on the issue. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There are other problems with the Taiwan station article: I think that the romanisations are all rendering 車站 ("vehicle-station"), instead of the 站 (just "station") given in Chinese. And I think that this argument is really questionable: it would seem to be equivalent to saying "US spellings must not be given as extra information on articles about other places in the English-speaking world", which I do not think is reasonable. The word "neutral" gets abused a lot, IMO. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: Thanks for your response. Thanks again for your warning about the pitfalls of overdoing the "make it neutral" argument- I will try to keep it in mind. Do you mean to say that Cingpu metro station might ought to be called "Cingpu station"/"Cingpu Station" or something? I did a quick check to see what the Kaohsiung MRT website [5] says- it doesn't say either 'station' or 'metro station'. If I were making the pages, I would title this page as "Cingpu (Kaohsiung MRT)"- it may be not as informative of a title as 'metro station' or 'station', but at least I'm avoiding adding extra words that the MRT doesn't add. I will make a note about this on the Kaohsiung MRT talk page if you think this would be a potentially good idea. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

車站 seems to be used on the Kaohsiung MRT website [6] (if I am understanding the usage correctly) Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I totally misunderstood what you said! haha. Well anyway, I DO think it would be wrong to add 'extra information on articles about other places in the English-speaking world' if I take your meaning. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I see the word 'Station' in this [7] link. I think that 'metro station' really is taking it too far. I think I will make a comment about this on the Kaohsiung MRT page- the terminology 'metro station' isn't used by the Kaohsiung MRT. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

[8] Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: A little time has passed. Here's what I'm thinking. Simplified Chinese forms that have never been used by the RoC and RoC localities/personalities should not be shown on those entries. It doesn't go the other way though: the original traditional Chinese characters are shown in PRC dictionaries, official standards for Chinese (Table of General Standard Chinese Characters), culturally appropriate contexts and in the historical sources, etc. Wiktionary, a dictionary, gives people the simplified forms of Taiwan location names if they need that information. Does what I'm saying make any sense to you? There ARE some cases of some simplified forms that are used in Taiwan- those forms usually have some pre-1949 basis. Those should be kept of course. -- I'm trying to think of what positions would undermine my point of view. I think the United Nations special organizations teams for Taiwan would almost certainly use the traditional characters in their documents, but if they didn't, it might constitute a basis for including the simplified characters 中华民国 which includes the new character '华'. It could be a touchy subject, but I think it's important not to actively show alien forms on pages where the local people don't use those forms. It's a little creepy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You may not be interested in that part of the discussion that I pinged you on. Anyway, I made some new changes on Cingpu metro station- see if you think it's good. May be too redundant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There are problems in the Cingpu station article still, which I will look at. But I do not agree at all with the approach you seem to be taking. Whether or not to show other representations of Chinese text should be decided on the basis of whether they are relevant, whether they help the reader, and so on, not on the basis of whether some particular government likes them. I agree generally that there is no obvious reason why it is necessary to add 中华民国 as an alternative to 中華民国, for example, but there should not be a rule attempting to ban such information. Similarly for pinyin, though from what I was just reading it looks as though the Taiwan govt has now adopted pinyin as a standard. In this case, particularly given the great obscurity of IPA for "difficult" Chinese sounds, pinyin would generally be extremely helpful to the typical reader who has done some study of Chinese. And no, anyone who thinks variant forms of characters, or different romanisation systems are "creepy" has no sympathy from me. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary can show us the Russian, French or other alternative language forms of the names of geographic features. Some (not all) simplified Chinese seems to be a non-local language in some cases- like the 华 in 中华民国. If a local area doesn't and never has used a particular form, then it does seem creepy to add that form to the English Wikipedia page as if that form is part of the language of the area. The people who have never used simplified Chinese need your sympathy and understanding. In my understanding of the situation in Taiwan, Hanyu Pinyin is used for romanizations unless special action is taken by a local area to use an alternate romanization. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC) (modified)

Agree with Geographyinitiative above. It does seem misleading to include Simplified Chinese on topics to which it is not relevant. For issues which involve parties that use both scripts (for example, the 1992 Consensus or the Mainland Affairs Council), then both should be given. But I would argue that it is misleading to include a script on an article that it isn't relevant to. Kdm852 (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I would generally agree with Kdm852's comment. There will be special cases, historical usages etc. where both simplified and traditional MUST appear on a Taiwan-related article. But there seem to be some cases where it's not so appropriate. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this section takes a far too broad view of "inappropriate". I see nothing very incorrect or inaccurate here. Moreover, there are any number of Chinese people/places/things that were created since Mainland Simplification that we still keep Traditional characters on for the sake of convenience. This is all much ado about nothing, in my opinion.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@White whirlwind, Geographyinitiative, Imaginatorium, and Kdm852: Is there any consensus on this issue? (Geographyinitiative is continuing to remove Simplified Chinese from uses of this template.) I would note that it would presently make more sense to include both Simplified and Traditional wherever possible, given that the convention appears to be to include as many translations/transliterations as possible; e.g. the article on Taichung includes romanizations for Cantonese (which has never been native to Taiwan), and most articles for places in Hong Kong include both Mandarin and Cantonese romanizations. If Traditional and Simplified have to go in places where they are not used natively, then the non-native romanizations should logically be removed as well. Jc86035 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese is not used in Taiwan, except in specific circumstances. Romanizations in a drop-down box are way, way different from adding simplified characters to a Taiwan article, which appear outside the drop-down box. It's like adding Korean to an article about Vietnam- yeah, it's related information- Korean and Vietnamese may have some linguistic connections. But it's not the name of the area that the people use. Why add a name the people there don't use or have not used historically, ever? Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: If the issue for you is just that it's too prominent, wouldn't it make more sense to de-emphasize it (e.g. by making the text smaller) than to remove it altogether?

Furthermore, if this is how the template is supposed to be used now (and it's not clear that there's even any consensus for this), how would this be dealt with in articles covering Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Malaysia and other overseas areas? Would Simplified Chinese be removed for Hong Kong articles? Jc86035 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan (in most cases) has not ever used Simplified Chinese. Why do you want to add material to an article that is not related to the language that the people in the area have ever used, that can be sourced? What would motivate editors to add 'native names' to articles that the people in the area aren't using? It's not really a 'native name' if the natives to the area don't use the name, is it? It wouldn't be the sources that would motivate such an edit. That's my thoughts in brief; I tried to keep it terse. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

He's removing them from infoboxes? Again, there's no reason to do that. The S-T distinction really has nothing to do with "language", it's mainly just an issue of typography. Imagine if on the Chinese Wikipedia their entry for Terry Pratchett's book Mófǎ de Yánsè 魔法的顏色 had an infobox that listed both "The Colour of Magic" and "The Color of Magic" as English titles. The book was written by a British author and originally used the first spelling, but the second is also legitimate and is used in many settings as well. It would be perfectly understandable to use both. Here, where it's an actual typographical character differentiation that is widespread and extremely well established, the case is much stronger. The only possible reasons I can think of for removing Simplified would be some sort of nationalistic protectionism or else a weird idiosyncratic crusade.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The point of having foreign language names on minor geography pages on English Wikipedia is to tell the readers what the name of a location is in the native languages of the area. There's no lead section of a Taiwan geography article that would include simplified Chinese characters (unless there was a specific source for that usage).

All I am advocating is to just use the native names the people in the area use, period. No need for additional 'native names' that the people native to the area have never used.

Making assertions about my motives that cast me in a negative light is not useful to productive discussion. You've got to find a way to imagine that other people could hold an opinion that you don't hold that may be legitimate.

When the people in Taiwan have decided to use the simplified characters in some capacity, it will be obvious. We will know for sure. There won't really be any room for debate.

I am trying to be as polite as I can possibly be. Why be in favor of adding linguistic material not local to Taiwan to Taiwan minor geography pages? Is there a source-based reason? 中華民國 (the Republic of China) has never used the character 华. It shouldn't be displayed on the English Wikipedia's Taiwan page, giving the impression that it is a character that is part of a 'native name' used by the people in Taiwan. That edit has stood for a while now, because it makes sense. Same goes for other articles. Obviously there will be areas of overlap, and where there's a clear area of overlap, there is room for debate in those specific situations.

I ask you to be considerate to the wishes of the people of Taiwan. They are in a kind of tough situation. Also, please don't belittle me for holding an opinion different from yours. I am trying as hard as I can. I will try to be respectful of others as well. The point is to build a good encylopedia, not to make fun of people. Let's take try to take a little responsibility for what we are doing here, as if we were talking face-to-face in real life. Let's raise the quality of debate on Wikipedia. I will try. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is a rule of thumb that I have learned: Whenever you make a post on Wikipedia, you should ask: "Is the post I am going to make 100% appropriate within the context of the feelings of a for-fun volunteer website community like Wikipedia?" Yeah, you have to stick to the facts 100% of the time. But in order for the encyclopaedia to function, it also has to be a friendly atmosphere. That's not a limit to freedom of speech and opinion, it's common courtesy. Accusations about my motives that portray me in a negative light are damaging to the environment of Wikipedia, which is a for-fun spare-time hobby thing we are doing here. This is an interesting discussion, not a life and death situation where "I'm right and you're wrong!" I think I could be convinced to use simplified characters for ROC (Taiwan) articles, but I don't know what that justification would be. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to get your jimmies rustled: my comment wasn't an "accusation", it was an observation that I can't see an objectively rational and dispassionate reason for advocating this change with such forcefulness. I suspected that there was something more beneath the surface, and based on your comment about "be[ing] considerate to the wishes of the people of Taiwan" I think my suspicion was correct. The wishes of the people of Taiwan, and we editors' personal feelings about the China–Taiwan situation (which is a very difficult and complex situation, to be sure), aren't relevant here. This is a typographical usage issue of two broad varieties, and the encyclopedia is not helped by artificially turning the inclusion of both varieties in an article on an area where one predominates into an attack on that area. This is an infobox, and is used as I described in my previous analogy. If this still doesn't persuade you, that's fine, but we're nowhere near a consensus, so please revert all your changes and wait until your rhetoric proves more persuasive. @Jc86035:  White Whirlwind  咨  00:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop being rude. If you have any evidence that any of the simplified forms are in use in Taiwan, let me know and I will add whatever is in the sources. Only the foreign language native names that are used (or have been used) by the people native to an area are appropriate to be displayed on the English Wikipedia page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC) (modified)

I don't think there is a consensus yet. Regards to your comment about the use of Cantonese on the page for Taichung, I think it should be removed since it's not relevant/appropriate to the subject. I also would agree with removing the simplified Chinese from Hong Kong articles that do not involve the Chinese government (which would make the use of simplified justified), for example the Basic Law, Legislative Council, etc. Kdm852 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading the comments above, no there doesn't seem to be any consensus. I strongly oppose the removal of (accurate) information on the grounds that it hurts someone's feeling. Of course is would be misleading to present 中华民国 as though it were the Taipei government's way of writing the name for its state, because it isn't. But if you are giving different forms of Chinese characters, for the benefit of the reader, then it seems unhelful to eliminate just some of them on political grounds. Although "simplified Chinese" (a slight misnomer, since the characters are simplified, not the language) generally refers to the Beijing government's character forms promulgated around the 1970s, in fact many of the "simplified" forms were already conventional. So some of them are used in Taiwan to varying degrees; see for example the two forms of 台湾 accepted as toplevel domain names (elsewhere in the article), where the first character is always the simplified form, and both forms are adopted as the second form. (In my personal opinion, this is a crazy way to do things, since it is almost impossible to convey the domain name reliably over the telephone. But that is a separate discussion.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is my brief opinion, again. If you want to add foreign language material to an English language article, you need a specific reason to do so and a source on which you base your claim. For instance, the article 'Moscow' includes the Russian for Moscow in the first sentence. If you want to know the translation of Moscow into other linguistic forms, you can go to Wiktionary (Moscow Translations Republic of China Translations). Wiktionary is a dictionary that can handle the numerous forms of location names in languages and dialects around the world, and it does. Mandarin Wikipedia etc. can help Mandarin speakers understand their language better, including whatever characters they want to use to explain it. English Wikipedia is only concerned with foreign language material insofar as it is sourced and used in the area as the name of the area. In the specific cases where evidence of simplified character use can be proven, then it can be proven. In the absence of that source, you are making up information. You do need to care about the feelings of the people in Taiwan, because you're adding material that is not part of their culture or history to their pages. Is that the Wikipedia you want? Do you want people to come to the page of your hometown and add names that are never used or never have been used in your area? Again, where there are specific sources for specific instances of simplified character use in Taiwan, that's a different story. We are always caring about the feelings and opinions of the people in every area we have a geography page on. Literally every time. That's my personal opinion. If we are going to add linguistic forms that have never been used by a local area to their English Wikipedia article, then where's the limit really? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to mention that Simplified Chinese characters were first promulgated in the 1930s and then retracted. Later, new forms were promulgated in the 1950s. These are the simplified characters currently in use in Mainland China. In the 1970s, another batch of simplified characters were promulgated, and most of those characters were retracted. I am fluent in Mandarin Chinese and have passed Level 5 of the TOCFL and Level 6 of Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi as well as gotten a rank of 2B on the Putonghua Proficiency Test. I have no ill will to China or Taiwan or anybody. We just need to stick with what the people in the area are using or have used when we are adding foreign language native names on English Wikipedia articles. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of Simplified characters from the infoboxes of Taiwan-related articles (for example, the removal of 中华民国 from the infobox-Chinese in the Taiwan article) because I see no harm in retaining linguistic information that is useful to the reader. And I find it odd that, considering the lack of consensus to support their removal, the OP has gone ahead and removed them from multiple articles. Phlar (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah if there is no consensus to support the removal, the characters need to be added back. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

Can you please add Cebuano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon, Waray, Bikol, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, Maranao, Tausug, Maguindanao, Chavacano, Karay-a and Surigaonon to the Filipino section? Tagalog is not the only language in the Philippines as the country has a Chinese community. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd While this is probably appropriate and I'm willing to implement it I would like to have some more consensus before implementing. I am not familiar enough with lenguages in the Phillipines to have an opinion on the list, but I'm guessing some people at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines might. --Trialpears (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion other than to suggest that if new languages are added, they should use standardized language codes if at all possible. Part of the problem with this mess of an infobox is that editors made-up codes as they went along so some are complete nonsense. Here is OP's list with the appropriate language tags taken from Module:Language/data/iana languages which itself is taken from the IANA language-subtag-registry file and which is derived from the various parts of ISO 639. I added the various other Bikol languages (I did not check to make sure that these others are in fact Filipino – some language -names are shared by geographically disparate populations):

• ceb - Cebuano
• ilo - Ilocano (ISO: Iloko)
• hil - Hiligaynon
• war - Waray
• bik - Bikol

• bcl - Central Bikol
• bln - Southern Catanduanes Bikol
• bto - Rinconada Bikol
• cts = Northern Catanduanes Bikol
• fbl - West Albay Bikol
• lbl - Libon Bikol
• rbl - Miraya Bikol
• ubl - Buhi'non Bikol

• pam - Kapampangan (aka Pampanga)
• pag - Pangasinan
• mrw - Maranao
• tsg - Tausug
• mdh - Maguindanao
• cbk - Chavacano
• krj - Karay-a (ISO: Kinaray-A)
• sgd - Surigaonon

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

Please incorporate these two sandbox edits:

• Module:Infobox multi-lingual name/data
• Module:Infobox multi-lingual name

which add |ky= for the Yale romanization of Korean, which is widely used in linguistic work. Kanguole 23:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a better parameter name than |ky=? ky is the ISO 639-1 language tag for Kirghiz and because the module has the name Module:Infobox multi-lingual name, it is conceivable that ky will someday be needed for Kirghiz.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

|kyale=, then? Kanguole 23:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

|ko-yale=? But, were I creating parameter names associated with Yale romanization, and because Yale is apparently used for multiple languages, I would avoid parameter names that resemble IETF language tags (in this case yale is an invalid ISO 15924 script tag). So, instead of |kyale= or |ko-yale=, perhaps |yale-ko=? Then, in the best of all possible worlds:

|y= → |yale-yue= (Cantonese)

|myr= → |yale-cmn= (Mandarin)

Of course, still hoping for the best of all possible worlds, other romanizations should be similarly modified to: <romanization standard>-<ISO 639 language tag>.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There is not a single Yale romanization applied to multiple languages, but rather romanizations for different languages developed by different scholars, with the common factor that they worked at Yale (cf Yale romanization dab page). A language-script hierarchy (as used by ISO 15924) would be a better fit for this case than the other way round.

But as you say, it would be confusing to invent our own pseudo-ISO 15924 tags. Also none of the existing parameter names look like that. |kyale= would be more consistent. Kanguole 08:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Revised edits:

• Module:Infobox multi-lingual name/data
• Module:Infobox multi-lingual name

Kanguole 10:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

myr is used for Yale romanization of Mandarin; y is used for Yale romanization of Cantonese. You want another for Yale romanization of Korean. So, multiple Yale romanizations. I did not mean to imply that a single Yale romanization standard applies to multiple languages, just that there are multiple Yale romanizations.

That none of the other parameter names look like |yale-ko= is immaterial. The parameter names used by the suite of templates that contributed to this module are a mishmash of made-up names from different authors at different times without regard to standardization or human readability. It is poor design that should not be perpetuated simply because "we've always done it that way."

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If we are going for longer parameter names, they will be easier to use if their structure follows their meaning. In this case, the primary classification is clearly the language, as is done with |oc-b92=, |oc-bs= and |oc-zz= (also Dungan, but those parameters are an overlapping mess). So how about |k-yale= or |ko-yale=? Kanguole 09:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

But ... You wrote: it would be confusing to invent our own pseudo-ISO 15924 tags yet here you are doing just that. I suggested |yale-ko= (and |yale-yue= for |y= and |yale-cmn= for |myr=) to avoid the pseudo-ISO 15924 tags.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I argued above that placing "yale" first as the primary classification would be misleading, and I believe it is more important to avoid that than a resemblance to ISO 15924. If it is a problem, I suggest |kyale=, as currently in the sandbox. Kanguole 14:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Which perpetuates the poor design practice of individual editors making up parameter names standardization-be-damned. Why do you think that romanization-type followed by ISO 639 language tag as a parameter name will be misleading?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Because "Yale" is not a romanization type. It is merely a common element of the names, arising from the common workplace of the various inventors of the romanizations. Kanguole 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

By that argument then, Yale romanization of Mandarin, Yale romanization of Cantonese, and Yale romanization of Korean are all misnamed. Similarly, |kyale=, |k-yale=, and |ko-yale= are also misnamed [because] "Yale" is not a romanization type – choose some other descriptor to replace type (Yale romanization uses the term system). Yale (capitalized or not) is a common part of the names that en.wiki uses for these romanizations. Placing yale at the front or the parameter name seems rather intuitive to me since that format aligns nicely with the associated en.wiki article titles about the romanizations. That alignment (similarity) makes the parameter name relatively easy for editors to decode.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have criticized the proposed names as ad hoc, but there is no proposed scheme for them to follow. The suggestion of romanization type + language tag does not work, firstly because "Yale" is not a romanization type, and secondly because there is no set of romanization types to use as the primary classification in a consistent naming scheme for other romanizations. The logical scheme would be language + name. Yes, that's the same structure as ISO 15924, which is unfortunate but perhaps inevitable (as they were seeking a logical structure too). Would spelling out "korean" make it different enough? Kanguole 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is my criticism. And yes, there is no proposed scheme to follow. Because en.wiki editors hate, hate, hate change, even when that change is beneficial, it is often best to take small steps. Normalizing the Yale romanization parameter names seems a good small step even if that small step is replaced by something better at a later date. Maybe all romanization parameters become |r10n-<something>= where <something> has a standardized form that identifies the romanization system name and the source language: |r10n-yale-ko=, |r10n-iso-ko=, |r10n-mr-ko=; r10n to avoid conflict between the 'z' and 's' camps. Adding yet another non-standardized parameter name to the pile does nothing to make sense of the mishmash of parameter names.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Kanguole: please update the sandboxes with your choice of parameter names. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have disabled the request as discussion is continuing above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)