Talk:Simplified Chinese characters
Latest comment: 9 months ago by PlaneCrashKing1264 in topic Hmmm...
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simplified Chinese characters article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | A news item involving Simplified Chinese characters was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 August 2009. |  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Simplified Chinese characters on 31 July 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Nomenclature
editA few points I've been thinking about, though maybe it's good to have this on Talk:Chinese characters or Project:China or somewhere.
- So, I think it's correct to view 'traditional' and 'simplified' characters per se as sister sets, just like men didn't descend from apes: their character variants were both in use well before the two sets were standardized in the 20th century. If Khitan small script is a sibling of Simplified, so is Traditional, imo.
- There's a conflation throughout the article, maybe an insignificant one, but it seems important to me, between 'simplified' and 'Simplified' characters, and likewise with traditional. It feels right to use 'simplified' when talking about the concept in general and looking and various examples, and 'Simplified' when talking about the specific standard promulgated by the PRC, and its political/scholarly history &c &c. This is reinforced of course by the fact that there are different Traditional character sets used in Hong Kong versus Taiwan etc, and simplified variants that aren't on the PRC list.
ruhinsiDi
editStudents hvn😄😃 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4080:CE1A:B581:CA87:789:DB06:80B5 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm...
editWhat issues are there? 🤔 PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- By far, the biggest issue with this article is that many paragraphs, and even entire sections, lack any inline citations. Remsense诉 02:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Like what? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the claims are a pain to find sources for if one can't read Chinese, but here's a representative example—the first paragraph of the article body:
Remsense诉 04:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Although most simplified Chinese characters in use today are the result of the work carried out by Chinese government during the 1950s and 1960s, the use of many of these forms predates the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Caoshu, cursive written text, was the inspiration of some simplified characters, and for others, some are attested as early as the Qin dynasty as either vulgar variants or original characters.
- Like what? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)