Module talk:zh-glyph
Module error
@Justinrleung, Wyang, some recent change to this module has created several hundred module errors in CAT:E. —*i̯óh₁nC 21:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind, I got it. —*i̯óh₁nC 21:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung: also, is the
{{Han etym}}supposed to display something on 乏 (fá)? If not, could you make a cleanup category for boxes that don't display any forms? —*i̯óh₁nC 21:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)- @JohnC5: It's supposed to be displaying something before, and I should have fixed it now. That said, it was needed before because the old naming conventions were not sufficient in covering the different forms. Under the new naming conventions, I don't see the need in showing so many forms with less specificity in terms of its era. @Wyang, do you think we still need to have that hidden part of the table? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung, JohnC5 I think it would be helpful ― the forms could show variation within an era (for example, 中), which would be useful for the reader to note. Wyang (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: There are some conventions established that allow multiple glyphs for the same era/script (see zh:酉), which could be included if we change the code. Would that be sufficient? I'm just not fond of having duplicate glyphs or glyphs that do not have specific eras (especially for bronze script characters, which could be Shang, Western Zhou, Spring and Autumn or Warring States). — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung, Wyang: I'm only here for functionality (no errors) and legibility (since I'm passing through). I really like the layout, but as in the case of 中, it is sometimes difficult to identify to which first-row era label a second-row script label belongs (So the "Qin bamboo and wooden slip script" I assume goes with "Warring States" but could theoretically be put with "Shuowen Jiezi" because of the layout). I can normally work it out, but it's not always immediately apparent at a glance. If there were vertical lines (particularly ones that didn't extend the entire height of the closed display), that might clarify things. —*i̯óh₁nC 22:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung We can have both ― both an extended preview table for those skimming through, and a repertoire of past forms for those more curious. Though unsorted chronologically, the forms within the bronze script show some interesting variations (643, 648, 649, 652, 653, 654, 657, etc.) which are difficult to fully capture with a small subset, and it also helps to substantiate and reinforce our description (that it depicts a flagpole) in Glyph origin (which, the reader may have doubts about with only a few images). @JohnC5 I also feel the same. I added the borders to the table, which makes it look a bit better, but more serious now. Wyang (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: Yeah, it does look way more severe now. The older version had a horizontal line separating the title from the preview that didn't extend all the way to the end of the box. I was hoping there could be a similar vertical line just between the eras. I think that would look pleasant and be clear. Is that possible? —*i̯óh₁nC 07:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it was the
----markup. I doubt there is an easy way to do that vertically. —*i̯óh₁nC 07:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)┊Wyang (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)- @JohnC5 Kidding... I don't know either. Having vertical lines separating the cells in the inflection-table would be better. Wyang (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: You could put something like
<div style="border-left:1px solid #000;height:500px"></div>in a rowspan between each era. Then just adjust the padding until it looks right. —*i̯óh₁nC 08:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC) - PS, what we are talking about is a horizontal rule. No vertical rule tag exists due to the order in which html parses. —*i̯óh₁nC 08:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5 This is the best-looking I could get it to display with inflection-table, which isn't necessarily better than wikitable IMO. Someone more qualified should probably adjust the table to make it look best. (Sorry it was not obvious... I was joking above.) Wyang (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: It was obvious. —*i̯óh₁nC 08:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Changed back to wikitable, which IMO looks better than an inflection-table with borders. Wyang (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- ... and @Wargaz agrees. Welcome! Wyang (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Surely I think wikitable looks better. --Wargaz (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- ... and @Wargaz agrees. Welcome! Wyang (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5 This is the best-looking I could get it to display with inflection-table, which isn't necessarily better than wikitable IMO. Someone more qualified should probably adjust the table to make it look best. (Sorry it was not obvious... I was joking above.) Wyang (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: You could put something like
- @Justinrleung We can have both ― both an extended preview table for those skimming through, and a repertoire of past forms for those more curious. Though unsorted chronologically, the forms within the bronze script show some interesting variations (643, 648, 649, 652, 653, 654, 657, etc.) which are difficult to fully capture with a small subset, and it also helps to substantiate and reinforce our description (that it depicts a flagpole) in Glyph origin (which, the reader may have doubts about with only a few images). @JohnC5 I also feel the same. I added the borders to the table, which makes it look a bit better, but more serious now. Wyang (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung, Wyang: I'm only here for functionality (no errors) and legibility (since I'm passing through). I really like the layout, but as in the case of 中, it is sometimes difficult to identify to which first-row era label a second-row script label belongs (So the "Qin bamboo and wooden slip script" I assume goes with "Warring States" but could theoretically be put with "Shuowen Jiezi" because of the layout). I can normally work it out, but it's not always immediately apparent at a glance. If there were vertical lines (particularly ones that didn't extend the entire height of the closed display), that might clarify things. —*i̯óh₁nC 22:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: There are some conventions established that allow multiple glyphs for the same era/script (see zh:酉), which could be included if we change the code. Would that be sufficient? I'm just not fond of having duplicate glyphs or glyphs that do not have specific eras (especially for bronze script characters, which could be Shang, Western Zhou, Spring and Autumn or Warring States). — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung, JohnC5 I think it would be helpful ― the forms could show variation within an era (for example, 中), which would be useful for the reader to note. Wyang (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: It's supposed to be displaying something before, and I should have fixed it now. That said, it was needed before because the old naming conventions were not sufficient in covering the different forms. Under the new naming conventions, I don't see the need in showing so many forms with less specificity in terms of its era. @Wyang, do you think we still need to have that hidden part of the table? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, Wyang: I hate to bring this up, but CAT:E has some memory errors now... ❤️ —*i̯óh₁nC 04:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5
Done: all fixed. Wyang (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
main form of a character
Sometimes the {{Han etym}} information is displayed on one page (温) but the pronunciations and definitions are displayed on another (溫). Would this be an issue? @Wyang --Dine2016 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Dine2016 Definitely. I think the information should be on 溫 whenever possible. Wyang (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Why small text for Old Chinese reconstructions?
Why are the Old Chinese reconstructions wrapped in <small> tags? This makes them ... well, small. The text in the box is already smaller than body text size thanks to the NavFrame CSS, and the tag makes them end up being even tinier. Is there a reason for this intense miniaturisation? This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions for improvements
1. Adding the chinese characters for each of the respective names in chinese: Oracle bone script - 甲骨文 Bronze inscriptions - 金文 Slip/silk script - 简帛文字 Small seal script - 小篆
2. Maybe adding a link for Liùshūtǒng: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Chinese_character_classification#Traditional_Shuowen_Jiezi_classification (although it doesn't sufficiently explain that this work was primarily a scholarly effort by Cheng Yaotian 程瑶田, to reconstruct or transcribe versions of older forms of characters using systematic principles) Sjchin91 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)