Module talk:zh-glyph

Module error
, some recent change to this module has created several hundred module errors in CAT:E. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 21:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, . —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 21:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * also, is the Han etym supposed to display something on ? If not, could you make a cleanup category for boxes that don't display any forms? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 21:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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., do you think we still need to have that hidden part of the table? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful ― the forms could show variation within an era (for example, ), which would be useful for the reader to note. Wyang (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some conventions established that allow multiple glyphs for the same era/script (see 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...) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, 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[5] 22:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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). 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)
 * 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[5] 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[5] 07:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wyang (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You could put something like html in a rowspan between each era. Then just adjust the padding until it looks right. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 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[5] 08:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It was obvious. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 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 agrees. Welcome! Wyang (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely I think wikitable looks better. --Wargaz (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up, but CAT:E has some memory errors now... ❤️ —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 04:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅: all fixed. Wyang (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

main form of a character
Sometimes the information is displayed on one page  but the pronunciations and definitions are displayed on another. Would this be an issue? --Dine2016 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I think the information should be on 溫 whenever possible. Wyang (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)