Template talk:Transliteration of Chinese

Gwohngdongwaa pengyam and Penkyamp
notice: wait until the so called fringe and fictional systems articles are removed by concensus


 * Please sign your posts. There is consensus and the 5 day listing period has passed. --Jiang 00:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Both articles have been deleted. It is time to let go. Supporters of the systems please provide evidence of its existence unrelated to Wikipedia. For offline publication, just quote the book or paper. Supporters may also leave a message at
 * User talk:Felix Wan/Draft/Penkyamp
 * or join the discussion at
 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cantonese_script/.
 * -- Felix Wan 01:35, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

BrE/AmE

 * Please stop reinserting the deleted articles. Also do not switch English spelling in defiance of the Manual of Style. This is a warning.--Jiang 09:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This template is now temporarily protected to prevent vandalism by this anon--Jiang 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling. I did not notice about the spelling. I myself always spell "s" instead of "z" and I just type what come up in my mind. -- 202.61.114.20 14:21, January 24, 2005, UTC


 * It's not as simple as that. Whether to use "s" or "z" depends on the spelling used on the page that the template is used on.  Some of them use "s" & others use "z" so it should be optional.  Thus I've just added a parameter, , to allow "~isation".  Just use  . Jimp 09:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Zhuyin
Zhuyin is a phonetic script. It does not use roman characters.--Jiang 22:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Zhuyin is not a romanisation method. But it is the root of Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin, and readers would be interested. The article Romanisation also mention Zhuyin. -- 202.61.114.20 14:20, January 24, 2005, UTC

That's still not a reason to include it here--Jiang 19:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What is/are the reason(s) why that's not a reason? -- 08:02, January 25, 2005, UTC

Zhuyin is a phonetic script. It does not use roman characters. As a template on "Chinese language Romanization" it does not belong. --Jiang 09:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a related piece of information, and that's why I listed it under "see also". -- 11:45, January 25, 2005, UTC

Language vs. dialect
Should the title of the box and the name of the category be changed? &mdash; Instantnood 12:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it's a problem. The "language" in "Chinese language Romanization" refers to all the spoken varieties as a unit, regardless of whether you prefer to call them dialects or languages individually.  --Umofomia 22:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If they are langauges but not dialects, it should be renamed "Chinese languages". A better titile could be "Romanisation of Chinese spoken variants". &mdash; Instantnood 06:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you see, a quirk in the English language lets us get around this issue because a noun phrase acting as an adjective cannot be plural. This is why you have phrases such as "two-car garage" and "haircut" rather than "two-cars garage" and "hairscut," which are ungrammatical.  So even if it's supposed to be "Chinese languages," using it as an adjective for romanization forces it to be "Chinese language romanization" no matter what.  "Chinese languages romanization" is ungrammatical.  So whether you believe it is one language or many, "Chinese language romanization" is still correct.  --Umofomia 08:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh ya. Didn't think about that. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 13:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the template?
The list of different romanizations is getting pretty long. How about splitting up the template with seperate ones for Mandarin, Cantonese, Min, etc? --Yuje 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wade
The Wade system is an entirely separate system of "romanization". It was used extensively by the British Customs officers.

In his 1892 dictionary, to render the pronunciation of the different Chinese sounds, Herbert Giles modified Wade's system is certain particular, extremely useful and significant ways. This why it was always known as 'The Wade system as modified by Giles", and was written "Wade-Giles". In my opinion, it is important that this table reflects this historical fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindsay658 (talk • contribs).


 * So is it an entirely separate system, or a close relative and predecessor of Wade-Giles? I am confused...
 * In any case, the current link at the template is wrong. As the article concerned (Wade (romanisation)) does not exist, I'll remove it for the time being.  --Pkchan 13:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The link should have been to Wade. Wade's 1859 work,
 * Wade, T.F., The Peking Syllabary; being a collection of the characters representing the dialect of Peking; arranged after a new orthography in syllabic classes, according to the four tones. Designed to accompany the Hsin Ching Lu, or Book of Experiments, (Hong Kong), 1859.
 * was an outstanding piece of scholarship (Wade became the first Professor of Chinese at Cambridge University) and it was, essentially, the standard, right throughout the entire British Empire, and the USA, until the appearance of Giles' modification.
 * On the basis that extremely important dictionaries, such as:
 * (Sir Walter Caine Hillier (1849-1927)) Hillier, W.C., An English-Chinese Pocket Dictionary of Peking Colloquial, (Shanghai), 1910. (which was substantially enlarged and edited, and released in 1945).
 * used Wade, rather than Wade-Giles transcription, it is certain that, from the point of view of the history of the interaction between Chinese and English, the Wade system of transcription is extremely important. Plus the fact that it was the standard, for a very long time for the transliteration in British bureacratic documents. I am restoring the alteration to the table. Lindsay658 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute whether Wade made the important contribution or not. The problem with the link is that this is a template for quick navigation to relevant articles.  The relevant article here should be Wade (romanisation), not Thomas Francis Wade, because that article is not an article on romanisation, but a biography of the author himself.  You are, of course, welcome to start Wade (romanisation), and at that point it would be appropriate to link to Wade (romanisation) on this template.  --Pkchan 08:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link to Thomas Francis Wade as well as the non-existent articles from the template for the same reason I have given above.  This is a template to relevant articles, and is not meant to be a complete listing of all romanisation schemes of the Chinese Language.  List of Chinese Language Romanisation, not this template, is the appropriate venue for the latter purpose.  --Pkchan 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Pkchan, I now 100% understand what you have done, why you have done it, and I agree with you. Lindsay658 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Postal System Pinyin?
I have intiated a discussion on whether it is appropriate to refer to the Postal Map spelling as "Postal System Pinyin" on Talk:Postal System Pinyin. Unless I hear any input in that discussion, I will move the page to a more appropriate name, and I will change this template accordingly.--Niohe 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Footering
This template is getting too long and there is no clear ordering. I propose that it be converted into a footer.--Jiang 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Extended Bopomofo
Extended Bopomofo for Taiwanese is a red link in English, but is a Chinese article. The content is covered in Bopomofo. Can an admin link the English red link to that section? --Chongrak (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I created Extended bopomofo as a redirect Bopomofo. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Order
Wu should be above Yue since it has more speakers otherwise the order in this table doesn't make any sense. --2.245.142.136 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)