Talk:撤

Stroke count
What do you think of this edit? It looks awkward because the simplified form has more strokes than the traditional form. Not sure. [] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Taiwan 🤷 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Hong Kong form is the same as the mainland form https://www.edbchinese.hk/lexlist_ch/result.jsp --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, your observations are correct. Stroke count for mainland China: 15, Taiwan: 14, Hong Kong: 15, Japan: 15, Korea: 15.
 * As you can see, Taiwan's stroke count is the odd one out. Some people have pointed out that the glyphs used for Traditional Chinese in modern Taiwan and Hong Kong are not really traditional because some adjustments have been made to the glyphs. The more "traditional" glyphs are referred as in Hong Kong/Taiwan or  in mainland China.
 * Currently, is not very efficient in dealing with such situations. I am still sorting through stroke count data from Taiwan and Japan. Once completed, we would have a box with 5 stroke counts to make things clearer. KevinUp (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's make this website the best Chinese English dictionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, how can I check the Korean stroke count? I have online resources for the Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan stroke orders, but I don't know how to check the Korean stroke count or stroke order, so I can't make the "|as=03|asmjk+=04|sn=7|snmjk+=8" edit I want to make to the page of the character "育". If I delete the 'k' (representing 'Korea'), it just moves Korea over to the traditional Chinese side. Even if the website is in Korean, I would love to try to learn how to use it. Thanks for any help. I was shocked by the length of the conversations you were having about Korean. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the site I use: https://hanja.dict.naver.com/hanja?q=育 - It uses South Korean glyph forms. Stroke order images can be found under "획순 보기" and you can see the animated stroke order by clicking the button at "획순보기 재생". KevinUp (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it might be a while (maybe half a year) before I finish sorting through the stroke count data because different regions sometimes use different radicals for the same character and I have to manually calculate the additional stroke count for some characters. KevinUp (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me a detailed introduction to that website. I made the relevant change to the 育 page. One last question- do you think there are any resources that give the stroke counts for Vietnamese Chu Nom? I guess there would have to be something like that out there somewhere. Wouldn't we want to incorporate their stroke counts? I will be thinking about it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh look at this! There is inconsistency between the English phrase given for "|asmjk+=" and "|snmjk+=". "|asmjk+=" generates: "in Chinese (mainland China, Hong Kong), Japanese and Korean," while "|snmjk+=" generates "strokes in mainland China and Japanese and Korean,". The word "strokes" is skipped in the "|as" part too!  --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there any other website out there that provides detailed translinguistic stroke counts like Wiktionary does? What a great place this is. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The orthography of Vietnamese is not standardized. Much of it is written in regular script, so significant variations do occur, e.g. in  and  which can be either three or four strokes.
 * Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn (字典𫳘喃摘引 by has a well-compiled stroke index here while Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Giải by  has a digitized stroke index here. Most Vietnamese dictionaries (including the ones I provided) only list the additional stroke count so the total stroke count for Vietnamese Han characters are mostly undetermined.
 * I don't think the Vietnamese glyphs in the Unicode chart can be used as a reference because most glyphs are based on this font which also has Simplified Chinese glyphs in it.
 * Here are some Vietnamese characters encoded using simplified components in Unicode that lack a corresponding character in traditional form. and  may possibly be a cursive form of  and  but  and  didn't exist before Simplified Chinese characters were created in 1956.
 * - no traditional form
 * - also has traditional form
 * (, - no traditional form
 * - no traditional form
 * - no traditional form
 * Also, historical dictionaries such as, , use characters such as  (containing ) and   (containing ) rather than  or  but the Unicode chart only has glyphs for  (containing ) and  (containing ) and no Vietnamese glyphs for  or , so glyphs submitted to Unicode do not represent Vietnamese Han characters well enough.
 * Yes, there are inconsistencies between the statements generated by  and  . This is not easy to fix, because the latter statement is automatically generated. In addition,  does not handle well characters with 3 stroke count variations, which is why I've stopped using these parameters. I think we will revert back to using the "unified" stroke number provided by Unihan once I've finished compiling the data.


 * Is there any other website out there that provides detailed translinguistic stroke counts like Wiktionary does? I don't know of any at the moment. Yes indeed, this is a great site. I would like to thank everyone for contributing to make it better. KevinUp (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I made pages for those anomalous characters. Should some kind of note be added to those pages explaining their unusual situation?
 * I had no problem coming up with hypothetical stroke counts for those characters, probably just based on the Unihan stroke counts?
 * It is unfortunate that the Vietnamese Han Nom have not been represented correctly by Unicode. These things take time I guess.
 * When you revert back to the unified stroke numbers of Unihan, will there still be some way to show the variant stroke counts? Or will the variant stroke counts get separate pages on Wiktionary somehow?
 * You're an amazing expert on this subject. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the pages for these anomalous characters. Regarding the usage notes, I think that is not needed at the moment. Perhaps these characters are indeed written that way.
 * Not sure what you mean by separate pages for variant stroke counts, but there will be a table similar to this:
 * Regional stroke count:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"


 * Mainland China 撤
 * Taiwan 撤
 * Hong Kong 撤
 * Japan 撤
 * Korea 撤
 * Vietnam 撤
 * 手+12 15
 * 手+11 14
 * 手+12 15
 * 手+12 15
 * 手+12 15
 * 手+12
 * } KevinUp (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 手+12
 * } KevinUp (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)