This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 07:16, December 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
I note that there are differences between this table and the wikidata list of characters ([[:Tempalte:Infobox element/symbol-to--overview-IDs|this list from Wikidata). -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sandbox table is a great idea (giving both varieties). However, in this case we need some multiline pronunciations because some element names differ in pronunciation between the two. The complete list for Mandarin dialect (T traditional, S simplified):
What do you propose? 2 rows of pron per cell? BTW, if it pronunciation or transliteration (Romanisation)? If pronunciation, we should drop them altogether here; and link the character to wiktionary. -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: It's Pinyin romanisation. But of course, romanisation does give a pronunciation guide, so I used the wrong word.
I'd propose two rows labelled S and T for simplified and traditional, yes. But perhaps only for the sixteen elements I listed which have differences (as the other 102 would look quite repetitive). Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we show two characters, it is starting to defy the whole intention, and the PT becomes out of overview. Maybe a table in the article body could solve this. Then about Pinyin: is it true that it leads to two Romanisations, depending on pronounciation? I thougt that the whole concept of transliteration was to stick to the script not the speech. This too would make the PT useless and out ofg place (we are not a Chinese dictionary). -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pinyin reflects the pronunciation (but is usually called Romanisation anyway).
It's also OK IMHO to keep it the way it is now, because Simplified Characters are by far the more common. The the cases where the characters (and sometimes pronunciations) are really different are all already at the Notes section, so there's not much loss of information. (In all other cases, the Simplified/Traditional differences are pretty predictable.) Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a template at the top of the article, saying the article may not meet the guidelines for notability. I removed it, on the grounds that there was a discussion, starting in June 2006, over whether the article should be kept, and the decision was "keep". Also, i would hate to see this article deleted; it is a significant subject; after all, how do you name elements in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, languages spoken by ~1/5 of humanity (if you count all forms of Chinese, not just Mandarin)? And Wikipedia has articles on many other things which seem to be less notable. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:N. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article doesn't have such source yet. (If it is notable simply because it mention naming of something in CJKV languages, then thousands of articles can be created on how anything are being translated into these languages and would make little senses.) C933103 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you imagine these are "translated"? Do you think that elements themselves speak English, then foreigners have to work out different ways of saying them? Anyway, your claim seems to be false: the article has references to real sources such as the China National Committee for Terminology(...). If you want to get rid of some junk, try List of gairaigo and wasei-eigo terms, which is a pretty indiscriminate list, unlike the present article. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from like China National Committee for Terminology are primary sources, and thus doesn't count as "sources that are independent of the subject."
As for why I imagine these are translated? Because I speak the language. And the article also talk about it if you don't speak the language. C933103 (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
