Talk:Hundred Family Surnames

Move
Hundred Family Surnames is bad grammar. I'm proposing to move it to "One Hundred Family Names". If no objections, I will do the move in a couple of days. --Sumple (Talk) 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which part is bad grammar? Most of the references I could find from Google say "Hundred Family Surnames", which seems like a reasonable name to me. Are you saying it needs the word "One", because if so I don't agree. Mike Dillon 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, I had thought it only had a hundred surnames, until I looked it up.
 * My other objection was the "Family Surnames" part. In ordinary usage you call it "surname" or "family name", not the two together; however I guess there can be hereditary and non-hereditary surnames, so technically "family surnames" is valid. --Sumple (Talk) 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the issue is that it's a bad translation, not bad grammar, I have no position either way, since I don't know one way or the other. I was just commenting that "Hundred Family Surnames" seems to be common translation. I don't oppose a move, I just was wondering about doing it for the reason of "bad grammar". Mike Dillon 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese text
I think the Chinese text should be removed, if it is not kept there for some special purpose. People who want to find that text can go to 百家姓. --Niohe 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was planning to translate it (or at least, transliterate it), with internal links to surname articles where available. --Sumple (Talk) 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, I think Option B (Sumple's proposal) seems reasonable. Badagnani 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just started, but check out User:Sumple/Surnames --Sumple (Talk) 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

List incomplete/wrong?
From a cursory glance at the list, it contains nowhere near 504 surnames, so it looks like the list is incomplete. Also, I noticed that a non-double surname, 华, was listed twice. That can't be right, unless it was a simplication that combined two traditional characters, and I'm not aware of such a character. --Yuje 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

the second 华 should be 毕. Flora 07:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuje, your "cursory glance" seems off the mark - I count 35 lines with 16 characters each, and one with 8 characters, adding up to 568 characters. Of these at least 58 are part of two-character names (quite possibly I have overlooked some of these...), so we have 510 separate entries; minus the closing line we get 506, which seems close enough for me to assume we are dealing with the complete text here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisZ78 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Last line
The last line are not surnames at all. --72.75.63.66 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are people with surnames 百 and 姓, although we can't guess whether the original author intended them as surnames on this line. _dk 23:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, they are not surnames. They are there to explain that the Hundred Family Surnames' list had ended, hence the word "终" or "終", which means "final". Nahnah4  |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  08:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese? Simplified Chinese? No... Traditional! Wait! Simplified! No, BOTH!
Hello, anyone reading this. I once edited this page, but reverted my edits. I changed the Complete text section into a Wikitable, with columns "Simplified Chinese", "Traditional Chinese", "Hanyu Pinyin" and "Article". The "Article" column may be redundant, but I want to know if putting in Traditional Chinese or Simplified Chinese or both would be better in the complete text section? I think that it is better to put both, as Mainland China, Singapore and Malaysia uses the Simplified while Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Kowloon uses the Traditional. In this case, I think it is way fairer instead of all in Traditional Chinese. I understand the fact that the Baijiaxing is about the top 504 surnames in the Song Dynasty. Nonetheless, more people uses Simplified Chinese BUT the use of Traditional Chinese is still existing; therefore I think that it is better to put it in a Wikitable with 3 main colums, "Traditional Chinese", "Simplified Chinese" and "English". Thanks, and reply (as well as ping me) at the bottom for youth put in your two cents' worth and I would be very grateful to hear that. Cheers, Nahnah4  |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  08:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have made my position clear when the discussion was at my talk page. (User_talk:Underbar_dk) Please do not reinstate your edit until the discussion has run its course. _dk (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with _dk. Using ruby characters is cleaner and more elegant. It's not necessary to include simplified Chinese characters in an article about a classical text. -Zanhe (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, seems to have misunderstood what this article is about. It isn't a list of 100 common Chinese names. It is a poem named Hundred Family Surnames. The "Complete text" section shouldn't be a list of words in a table because that isn't the complete text of the poem. The poem structure, lines of eight characters and rhyme, are as important a part of the text as the actual words. When you break that line structure you lose part of the essence of the poem.


 * Generally we don't use simplified Chinese for historical texts. So traditional Chinese only is perfectly valid here. If we wanted to have both scripts, then I would recommend putting them side by side in two columns similar to:

||    ||     ||
 * Traditional Chinese and Pinyin

||    ||     ||
 * Simplified Chinese and Pinyin


 * The above layout allows both traditional and simplified scripts while maintaining the poem structure and layout. Rincewind42 (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The original format, that is with ruby characters, is more useful as it suited to the nature of the topic. I also find it more pleasing. A table is detrimental, since it is essentially dissecting the text. There's the intended traditional text for the context, and the additional simplified characters doesn't quite cater to the understanding of the topic to English-speaking people on en.wiki anyway (not that I have a strong opinion about it).  --Cold Season (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of your opinions. I have a better understanding now; however I prefer Ricewind's explanation on the having two columns. I understand this is actually a traditional article, and I will not reinstate my edits, like what DK mentioned. It takes a lot of time to actually make a second column with ruby texts, as there are 504 surnames in the text. What should we conclude with, so we all will agree with it? I might take Rincewind's. I apologise if any inconveniences were caused, and my edits leading to this discussion here is unintentional at first. Thank you for your cooperation, Nahnah4  |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  10:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think that putting it into a table in the traditional format (See the Chinese Wikipedia) and putting it into two different table, Traditional above and Simplified bottom. However, we must think of where to put the Hanyu Pinyin, in this case. Nahnah4  |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  06:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to fix what's not broken. No to tables. _dk (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with _dk on this. The current format serves the article well. --Cold Season (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant the tables in the Chinese Wikipedia format! IF CHINESE WIKIPEDIA ACCEPT THAT FORMAT THEY USE THERE WHY CAN'T WE USE IT HERE? Just because this is English so we can't? You know, this article is written in ruby text, and not all computers can see ruby texts properly! Are you guys listening? Have you all even clicked on the Chinese Wikipedia link for this article? Oh my god, you settle this, I hate this. WHAT YOU ARE USING IS TECHNICALLY A TABLE, DK. DEW.   Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 06:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down, dude. Consensus here suggests we keep this format, and that's that. What Chinese Wikipedia does can be a point of reference, but nothing more. I suggest you move on. _dk (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Nahnah4, the ruby text rendering is awkward. Why shouldn't we dissect the text? That is the whole purpose of the wikipedia article. It is useless to try to preserve the original rendering or to even use that as inspiration. There is no shortage of full texts of the Hundred Names text on the internet and there's even one on wikisource. It's not exactly rare.

The rendering with the ruby text is messy and unclear. A table is much better, but I would suggest that the table be made to mark line endings, from the original, such as with a thicker black line. I would also suggest a short excerpt of the original text be included without the ruby, just to give the reader an impression of how it is formatted (ie. as a poem), the current rendering with the ruby text, doesn't read as a poem, it reads as a red and blue mess. NahNah4's solution includes both simplified and traditional, which is useful to the reader. The simple declaration that "we" don't put simplified characters in articles about classical texts is weak. Most Chinese speakers use Simplified Characters today, so it's obviously useful and we put simplified characters in articles about Chinese topics of all kinds. Consensus can change. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it's common, doesn't mean we don't have to do it. It's more to the point, that that suggestion. Yes, consensus can change and I will hold to that if it does. --Cold Season (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise for being angry. Anyway, some computers do not hav eruby text rendering support, like mine. It screws up the whole thing and look weird. And I like Metal.lunchbox's opinion. I am on their side, so don't judge me. It is way better to put it in a table, like 百家姓. Then, we simply put  tags to put the translated surname at the bottom, and we put two tables, specifying which is Traditional and Simplified, as well as indicating which is the original one. By the way, this discussion has not closed yet. Thanks,  DEW.   Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 05:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'm not convinced that the table Nahnah4 came up with is the best possible option, but it's clearly favorable to the image above. In other words, a table, breaking it down a little and showing both simplified and traditional, but perhaps also preserving lines from the original would be preferable. In either case I think WP:IFITAINTBROKE isn't a valid argument here. It seems pretty broken to me. Also, all users in this discussion should remember that we need to operate on consensus, meaning that we need to come to a kind of general agreement about how to advance on the page. see WP:BRD Surely we can come up with a better rendering of the text than we currently have. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have both parties going "such and such format is way better", maybe it all boils down to personal preferences since I don't find the Ruby characters messy/unclear even in their unrendered form, while Metal.lunchbox doesn't see the problem with tables dissecting the text. However, I am having trouble visualizing 's suggestions, so maybe it would be beneficial to have a sample table here, as Rincewind42 had done above. Thanks. _dk (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hundred Family Surnames (Simplified Chinese) - Chinese Wikipedia.png Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)]]
 * Great, condescending person who assumed we didn't look at the Chinese Wikipedia, now answer your own question: Where do we put the pinyin? _dk (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have ruby text supported either, so I am aware how it looks like (and I find it still better in both forms). In the end, this boils down to preference, and I see no merit in a change. To the consensus thing, it can change and I will hold to that if it does; don't have to repeat it. --Cold Season (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion refresh
I already said, put the  tags and write the Pinyin at the bottom. Great, condescending person who assumed I didn't know the answer. DEW.  Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 08:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would look better than what we have now, maybe I'm just not imaginative enough. And isn't that just a hardcoded version of Ruby characters? The manual of style for China-related articles even has a section on how and why ruby characters are used on Wikipedia, no use reinventing the wheel. _dk (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Two column ruby version
||    ||     ||
 * Traditional Chinese and Pinyin

||    ||     ||
 * Simplified Chinese and Pinyin

Comments
Above I have tried to create the tables as suggested by Nahnah4 along with the current ruby, the two column version of the ruby and the current Chinese Wikipadia version. I think that putting the pinyin under the Chinese is messy. the pinyin no longer matches up with the Chinese script and it breaks over two lines. Maybe you could solve this by making the Chinese text bigger and the pinyin smaller and putting each character into a table cell so that they all lined up. However, doing that would just make it look very much like the ruby already looks which would defeat the entire purpose. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In regards to the boxes...
 * First suggestion: It's not suitable and breaks format.
 * Second suggestion: It replaces the purported messy with another one, so the basis would be preference.
 * Alternative: Same, just with more lines.
 * Lot's of boxes: It does somewhat look like ruby, but not better. It's just a complication to fix nothing. --Cold Season (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rincewind42 for your effort to advance this matter. I had something like the last example in mind, since it links the pinyin with the Chinese. I'd say that since the poem is basically a list of family names it's important that the pinyin should be obviously linked to each name or else it's just in the way. The original has simplicity which is good but I still prefer a table, but I'd propose the following changes:

Eight characters per line to make line endings from the original obvious and to work better on smaller screens. Wikilinking of the names as in the original. Removing numbers, not sure what those mean. Some obvious style improvements could be made, such as removing vertical borders, but you get the idea. It accomplishes much of what the original does, but shows lines more clearly, includes simplified characters in a not-too-cumbersome way, avoids redundant wikilinking, and works in browsers which don't render ruby characters the way you would like them too. I think it works well. Does any else feel a similar way? 16:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we will just stick it that way, but I am still not that pleased. CAN YOU GUYS PING ME? DEW.   Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 08:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, we are under no obligation to ping you or please you. Put this page on your watchlist and check often. _dk (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I care, DK. I perfer to get pinged, happy? Who uses the watchlist? It is ridiculous and I never touched it at all. DEW.   Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 04:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

the origins of specific surnames
Hi, everybody. I think the content section lacks a brief analysis of the origins of specific surnames. For example, I have seen before that Xie comes from the name of a place in ancient times. --Jacobjia66 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)