Talk:Traditional Chinese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Traditional Chinese article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Move 2 Names 3 revival of Traditional Chinese 4 Trend, Development, Spread & Future of Traditional Chinese (sic) 5 Wikipedia 6 Article name changed from "Traditional Chinese characters" to "Traditional Chinese" 7 United Nations

[edit] Move

Recommendation: Move to Traditional Chinese character (to clarify and to demonstrate that it is just a type of Chinese character) and keep Traditional Chinese as a useful redirect that we all end up using (which doesn’t matter – using redirect or direct links, that is). --Menchi 20:50 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Complete. (Page moved from Traditional Chinese.) --Jiang

---

[edit] Names

Don't Hong Kongers call Trad. char "Complicated char" as well? (See zh:各地華人詞彙對照) --Menchi 23:21, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. I count Hong Kong as part of China. Maybe I simply delete "Within China". BTW, it happens among overseas Chinese also. wshun 23:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, we Hong Kongers call it "Complicated char", but most people consider it to be the one and only one standard form of Chinese. How we call it is just how the government want us to. By the way, Hong Kong is undoubtedly part of China, just as Taiwan and Macau, but these regions are not part of Mainland China.

Which China are you talking about? Taiwan is a part of China. "China" is the Republic of China on Taiwan. Taiwan is in no way part of the Communist regime in Peking nor will it ever be. (Chiang Kai-shek 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

---

---

Chinese as known, is Traditional Chinese. Only after the creation of Simplified Chinese in mainland China (to help the less forturnate and illiterated), we are forced to call the Traditional Chinese the Complicated Chinese so as to distinguish the two. SIGH. Xaaan5 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who is getting confused, the standard established English terms are "simplified characters" and "traditional characters" or "simplified Chinese characters" and "traditional Chinese characters". "Complex/complicated characters" is a translation of the Chinese term(s). "Simplified Chinese" and "traditional Chinese" are both wrong, and are not even the translations of the Chinese terms. LDHan 17:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revival of Traditional Chinese

If one day, there is the United States of China, undoubtedly, Traditional Chinese will best suited to demonstate our long history and rich culture.

I would like United Nation and Wikipedia to respect Traditional Chinese
and allow the 2 versions of Chinese text to co-exist.

I believe that given some time, after getting rich materialistically and culturally, the PRC people can catch up and adopt Traditional Chinese again.

We who preserve the Traditional Chinese are happy to wait for that day. But it is necessary to allow us to preserve it while those who can not are trying to catch up.

Do not get UN to marginalize or minorize or corner the tradition.

I would love to see Traditional Chinese be adopted as THE writen form of Chinese language for the Nation called China.

I definitely do not want to let other countries see that we had to use simplified stuff : a humiliation to our intelligence and ability.

Xaaan5 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Though much of your speaking is a big POV... A reasonable hope for you is that if one day China and Japan and Korea probably decide they would like to form a tighter cooperation and unify the writing system, the most possible resolve is to readopt Traditional Chinese, as neither China or Japan would hope to convince each other to use their own simplified forms. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a big block of ludicrous. Michael.Niemann 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trend, Development, Spread & Future of Traditional Chinese (sic)

This section appears to be one person's own view regarding simplified characters and traditional characters, and should be deleted as it is POV, also it contains many factual errors. LDHan 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. This section was one big POVed rant filled with factual errors. Just curious, IS the UN trying to "eliminate" Traditional CCs? Sjschen 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I am the one who deleted the section, I am obligated to give my own reasons. Note, I usually try to re-phrase or repair a section instead of resorting to deletion but the section was too fraught with 1)factual errors, 2)uncited material not of "general knowledge", 3)opinions, and 4)"non-encyclopedic" language for saving. For example:

• "...as the ruling party, the best tradition should be adopted as the leading unifying written form, not using a sub-standard written form created for the illiterates..." An opinion followed by a complete factual error.
• "...behind-the-scene forces had influenced United Nation..." Citation? Can't find this..
• "...facilitate the communication between people from PRC, ROC, Hong Kong..." Maybe, but you should cite the studies that show that it WILL
• "Some people must have been pretty misled or ignorant..." Your opinion.
• "When China as a nation become rich and strong, and when the number of illiteracy fall below a certain percentage, it is likely that Traditional Chinese will be revived." Your opinion.
• "How can 3 versions be replaced by one - Simplified Chinese? To help UN save paper and money? To help UN to please the ego of PRC?" No rhetorical questions. Facts please
• "...it is illogical to force the more advanced and progressed users of the language to adopte the lower standard of the fall-behind." ...uh...

Sjschen 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Are there two Chinese language Wikipedias - for Simplified and Traditional, or just one?

Just one. Chinese Wikipedia has the unique technics of converting between two glyphs, though sometimes it does give wrong mappings. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name changed from "Traditional Chinese characters" to "Traditional Chinese"

I've just noticd the article's been moved to "Traditional Chinese" with "Naming conventions mandate to name articles according to what the thing is known as to most people" as the justification. I think this should be discussed before such a move. I would dispute that most people know these characters as "traditional Chinese". I think the terms "traditional Chinese characters" and "traditional characters" are much more common. Not only is "traditional Chinese" less common, it is also inaccurate and ambiguous. LDHan 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion at Simplified Chinese#Article name changed from "Simplified Chinese characters" to "Simplified Chinese". --Sumple (Talk) 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations

"As of January 2009, traditional Chinese characters will not be recognized by the United Nations as an official script[citation needed]."

Where's that from? I can't find it on Google!

I've read about it in the papers. I don't see anything about it on the UN website, but the UN GA page only uses simplified Chinese and not traditional Chinese: [1]. --Sumple (Talk) 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)