Talk:Simplified Chinese characters

Nomenclature
A few points I've been thinking about, though maybe it's good to have this on Talk:Chinese characters or Project:China or somewhere. Remsense (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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
Students hvn😄😃 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4080:CE1A:B581:CA87:789:DB06:80B5 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm...
What 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)
 * Oh, ok PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)