Talk:Kangxi Dictionary

Structure of the Kangxi dictionary : title of each part ?
from zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他

Hello, I need chinese help to complet the english article en:Kangxi Dictionary (康熙字典). Can you help me to complete the Structure, I already see the page number using 康熙字典網上版 Kangxi Dictionary Net Version, but I need the title of each part.

So, using 康熙字典網上版, please help me to complete this : End.
 * ? : p.1 to 6 (《御製序》)
 * ? : p.7 to 12 (《凡例》)
 * ? : p.13 to 40 (《等韻》)
 * List of old radicals : p.24 to 26
 * List of Kangxi radicals : p.41 to 49 (《總目》)
 * List of character which are moving to an other radical (?) : p.50 to 66.
 * ? : p.66 to 70
 * ? : p.70/71
 * ? : p.73/74
 * The dictionary part start with the radical 一, one : p.75 to 1631
 * ? : p.75 to 1538
 * List of [214 kangxi ?] radicals : p.1539 to 1544 《補遺》
 * ? : p.1545 to 1576
 * List of [214 kangxi ?] radicals : p.1577 to 1583 《備考》
 * ? : p.1585 to 1631
 * Other explanations :
 * ? : p.1633/34/35
 * ? : p.1637 to 1683

Yug 20:52 2006年6月12日 (UTC)
 * J'aime vous aider... mais non maintenant--鄧啟昌 03:33 2006年6月13日 (UTC)


 * Dane by me, please check them! --方洪渐 01:48 2006年6月14日 (UTC)

former move
The following message was moved from Talk:Kangxi Dictionary.--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) I moved this to "Kangxi dictionary" (notice lowercase 'd'), as I don't see the reason 'd' has to be capitalized. Please just let me know if I am missing something. -- Taku 22:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Move. This is a book. Its title should be capitalized. I really cannot understand why User:TakuyaMurata moved it to lowercase at 22:44, 23 May 2005. See Naming conventions (books) and Naming conventions (capitalization). --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved as it's a proper noun and is therefore capitalized. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly can't recall why I moved the article :) Perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe I was trying to follow some kind of a guideline other than mentioned above, but if that was the case, I should have left some kind of note on the reasoning for the move. In any rate, I agree with the move. -- Taku (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support the capitalised version Kangxi Dictionary. Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers quibble
Hi, this article says:


 * "The dictionary contains more than 47,000 characters (including obscure, variant, rare, and archaic characters) but less than a quarter of these characters are now in common use."

From this I deduce that the number of characters in common use is less than 11,750, but not drastically so, and certainly more than 9,400 otherwise the text would refer to a fifth not a quarter. Are there really this many characters in common use? 109.153.233.36 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can pass the highest level of the HSK proficiency exam with only 2,600 characters. Studies show that someone who knows 3,500 characters can read 99.48% of modern Chinese text. I have seen the estimate that someone working with legal documents in Taiwan might need as many as 10,000 characters. So, 11,750 is probably an over-estimate of the number of characters "in common use". Of course, it depends what you mean by that term. If one means only to exclude very rare or obsolete variants the number of characters may be a good deal higher.Bill (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kangxi Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207025728/https://seguecommunity.middlebury.edu/view/html/site/tbilling/node/4226261 to http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Science/kangxizidian.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with English Dictionaries
I question the appropriateness of the comparison of the number of entries in English dictionaries in the first paragraph. The entry count for this dictionary is the number of characters it defines, whereas the entry count for the English dictionaries is the number of words they define. Since most Chinese words are written with more than one character, these numbers are not comparable.Bill (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point, but Endymion Wilkinson is one of the best and most sensible authorities in the field, and he thinks it's an interesting observation. Still, maybe we should put it in a way to raise fewer eyebrows. I'll give it a try.ch (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)