Talk:熨貼

Main entry
I'm not quite satisfied with the recent edit of changing the simplified form to 熨帖. 帖 is not the simplified form of 貼, so it's not great to put 熨帖 as the simplified form of 熨貼. Should we make 熨帖 the main entry instead and make 熨貼/熨贴 an alt form, or is there a better solution? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As a foundation for whatever edits are to be made here, I think the origin of the divergence between the Taiwan and Mainland standards should be specifically identified. But after a preliminary search, I couldn't find that origin point either online or in the sources I normally consult. 《第一批异形词整理表》2001年 does not have the 熨帖-熨貼 pair. 现代汉语词典试用本 p1262 from 1977 has an entry for 熨帖 and does not have an entry for 熨貼. After a preliminary search, it seems none of the 普通话异读词审音表 mention 熨帖 or 熨貼. 现代汉语规范词典3 p1617 has an entry for 熨帖 and in that entry specifically proscribes the use of 熨貼. 辞海6 p2809 has an entry for 熨帖 and does not have an entry for 熨貼. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Taiwanese standard is not the only standard for traditional Chinese (although it is an important one). 熨帖 is attested in traditional Chinese (as early as the Tang dynasty), and 熨贴 is also attested in simplified Chinese (as seen in the examples given in Hanyu Da Cidian). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this change?? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a little bit overdone. If an official policy like 通用规范汉字表 said so, then the current layout is good. But I don't think that's the case here. I'd go with this + the current usage notes (if 熨貼 is the main entry): Dokurrat (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , etc. I don't know what qualifies as "t2=" ('Additional traditional forms') and what qualifies as "alt=" ('Alternative forms of the word'). I think we need more information about the origin of the divergence between the Mainland and Taiwan standards (and also any information that may exist about the Hong Kong and other traditional Chinese standards). The major downside I see to Dokurrat's proposed edit is that 熨贴 is a proscribed form, and to put a proscribed form in the "s=" ('Simplified form') seems dubious to me. (PS: 通用规范汉字表 has no mention of this issue (帖, #1107, pages 15, (106) & 196- 贴, #1521, pages 19, 112 & 204- 熨, #6015 pages 67, (159) & 248). The 重編國語辭典修訂本 says 帖 "通「貼」. " (and this is reflected in my new edits on the 帖 page.) 辞海6 p2261 has a similar definition- "粘，贴".) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , etc. I don't know what qualifies as "t2=" ('Additional traditional forms') and what qualifies as "alt=" ('Alternative forms of the word'). I think we need more information about the origin of the divergence between the Mainland and Taiwan standards (and also any information that may exist about the Hong Kong and other traditional Chinese standards). The major downside I see to Dokurrat's proposed edit is that 熨贴 is a proscribed form, and to put a proscribed form in the "s=" ('Simplified form') seems dubious to me. (PS: 通用规范汉字表 has no mention of this issue (帖, #1107, pages 15, (106) & 196- 贴, #1521, pages 19, 112 & 204- 熨, #6015 pages 67, (159) & 248). The 重編國語辭典修訂本 says 帖 "通「貼」. " (and this is reflected in my new edits on the 帖 page.) 辞海6 p2261 has a similar definition- "粘，贴".) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The entry as it stands now looks like a good compromise to me. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)