Template talk:Simplified Chinese radicals

Missing associated components?
The caption reads GF 0011-2009 Table of Indexing Chinese Character Components prescribes 201 principle indexing components and 100 associated indexing components (in brackets) used in Simplified Chinese. but the table above it includes only about 82~83 associated components. I've seen the number of associated components given as both 100 and 99; I'm not sure which is correct.

I think principle component 5 is meant to have 15 associated components, not including 亅 which is listed in this table for component 5, but I think it's actually meant to belong to component 2. I'm basing this based on what I can glean from the references at Table of Indexing Chinese Character Components, but these references are in Chinese and they're in a format that lacks copyable text so they can't be automatically translated. Even ignoring the missing 13 (乚乙 are already listed and seem to be 2 of the 15) or so stroke-like components missing from component 5, that doesn't account for all the apparently missing components; about 4 remain unaccounted for.

Does anyone know which components are missing and their corresponding Unicode characters? – Scyrme (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! Since you created this template, are you able to help with this? – Scyrme (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The 亅 seems to be an associated component of 5 in the older version but was moved to 2 in 2009 (Fixed). Since not all components are listed in mainstream dictionaries, and it would be a grinding task to replicate it because not all are available in Unihan, I don't think having all listed is that necessary. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 06:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to check which ones are encoded and which ones aren't?
 * I understand not including them all if they aren't listed in most dictionary. How about amending the note to indicate that only common associated components are listed? Alternatively, a note could be added to the template documentation to explain why they are absent. – Scyrme (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they are not actually uncommon. It's just many people don't actually care which character falls under which indexing component because pinyin indexing is more commonly used in China mainland. If a character is rare and hard to figure out the indexing component it belongs in, the dictionaries usually put it under every possible indexing component instead of just one, and also list it in a supplemental table of 难检字 (hard-to-look-up characters). Still, I made some corrections so that the template looks somewhat like the standard (with a few associated ones missing). I am not aware of any method to find a character using strokes. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 04:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be able to copypaste from https://www.zdic.net/zd/bs/. I haven't double checked to make sure anything not in the template is at that address though. Folly Mox (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for amending the template!
 * Counting them myself, I'm now sure 100 is the correct number, not 99. I've compared with the template and it was missing associated components for 5, 68, 158. It also appears to have an associated component for 170 where none is listed in the source from Table of Indexing Chinese Character Components.
 * 5 should have 15 components, but they're mostly assorted stroke-like characters and omitting most of them is understandable. In-fact, the table from the source omits all of them, instead listing them in preceding text. The 3  which are the probably the most important to list are already included. The missing ones do seem to be encoded in unicode though.
 * 68 has 2 and is missing the combining form of . Does an unicode version exist? I would've added an image, following the example of others that do the same, but Commons only seems to have a .gif illustrating the stroke order but not a static .svg illustration.
 * 158 has 1 and was missing . I've added it to the template.
 * 170 has  but this doesn't seem to be listed in the table. Should it be removed?
 * If we included a character/image for 68 the note could be amended to be more specific: rather than "not all associated indexing components are listed above" we could have "radical 5 has 15 associated components, some of which are omitted here".
 * They don't seem to all be present there, unfortunately. I think it's missing the ones which aren't encoded separately in unicode. – Scyrme (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Make it looks like the original table if possible. Remove items that do not belong in it. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 01:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)