Talk:Kuomintang

Wade-Giles
I am writing to let you know that Wade-Giles is part of the origin of the English term 'Kuomintang' and hence it is appropriate and I would go so far as to say vitally important to include it in the etymology section for this word, otherwise the reader will not know. It was shunted out of the way here:  Pinging you to show you how there is a constant struggle just to say "Wade-Giles" anywhere; any basis will be used to deny space to Wade. Still waiting for it to be added to multi-syllabic entries in zh-pron. I guess Guwaathgyu Romanzgyh or whatever is more "important" than Wade though. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the mass ping, but I kind of need to get something settled clearly here. If any of you are willing to comment on validity of my recent here here: I would appreciate it. Some people seem to think that because Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles, etc. are not languages (they are indeed transliteration schemes) that they therefore shouldn't be mentioned in the Etymology sections or perhaps are merely optional, ignorable, deletable content. I heartily disagree- if a particular transliteration scheme can be shown to be part of the origin of the particular spelling of a given term, then not mentioning it is to omit part of the discussion of how the word arrived into English. Therefore, I would even go so far as to say that removal of such material could be considered entry depredation in extreme circumstances- it would be depredation if you outright removed the other components of the etymology. I don't really know how you all feel on this. Feel free to ping anyone else you feel may be able to comment on this matter. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)
 * These should clearly be treated as etymology-only languages (from the perspective of the etymology module). I agree with your argument. Theknightwho (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously, GI, I think you're right and they're well-meaning but mistaken. Xi'an and Hsi-an come from the exact same languages and it's vitally important to note the transliteration scheme involved. Not everything is a romance language or should be treated as one. No, that doesn't involve calling them "special double plus plus languages". It just involves realizing that romanization is important. The only reason to code them would be to start automating their categorization. Personally, I don't care much if there's a list of all Wade-Giles forms of words because it's going to fill up very quickly with necessary but outdated and less important terms very quickly.


 * If it does get formatted that way, then, I suppose you're at least looking at Pinyin (I don't think the Hanyu is important to distinguish now that Taiwan's other system is gone and left little behind it) and Wade-Giles and "irregular". Guwaathulhu Fhtagn is the only word that regularly uses that system and most of the others like Legge's old scheme are the same way. The problem would be the next generation of pedantic editors who want to hone in on Latin/Portuguese/French-derived transcriptions differentiated by each Jesuit priest who ever wrote home. Bleh. Doesn't change that pinyin and Wade need to be mentioned and distinguished. — LlywelynII  10:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sentiment expressed here, though I can also see how its importance might not be immediately recognized. I'm not familiar enough with etymology to comment on only actual languages mattering, but I don't see anything at WT:ETYM that would suggest transliterations should not be mentioned. Indeed since different transliteration schemes can affect both the pronunciation and understanding of words, they feel important for etymology broadly. ChromeGames (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I removed Wade-Giles while applying the template translit in the etymology. Regardless of whether it should be mentioned in the etymology, the category that you added manually is certainly useful. We may also create an etymology template that will automatically categorize the entry as well as specify the name of the transliteration scheme in the etymology. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  22:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your support and guidance; sorry if I was rude. Above: "We may also create an etymology template that will automatically categorize the entry as well as specify the name of the transliteration scheme in the etymology." I am deeply in favor of this proposal; I want to add this proposal directly into the Grease Pit ASAP, but I don't know how to word such a proposal, so I would appreciate it if someone who knows what they are talking about will make the proposal for me. If no one does it after a few days, I will try to explain the idea to them. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Geographyinitiative To make this compatible with the system we have, I would suggest that we have etymology-only languages for the relevant transliteration schemes (in a similar fashion to how we have Medieval Latin, for instance). These language codes can only be used in etymology templates, and are treated as 'children' of the language, so you get all of the relevant categorisations for the parent, plus any specific ones that apply to the etymology-only language as well.
 * For a start, Pinyin and Wade-Giles would make sense, but no doubt there will be others. Theknightwho (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * (To acknowledge the ping: I am flattered to be on the "big name alert list", but not at all qualified in Asian languages. Sorry.) Equinox ◑ 05:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023
Rfv-sense: "Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang". That political party/faction is not solely referred as the "Kuomintang", but rather "Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang" (whether this SOP can survive WT:IDIOM is another problem). The quotes as mentioned under that meaning also don't prove that "Kuomintang" solely can refer to the meaning of "Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang": both of them are using the full name of that party/faction.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with removal of this sense based on the logic presented above. However, I am not familiar enough with the minor political parties in the PRC to know if the RCCK is referred to as just 'Kuomintang' in some contexts. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's plausible, but hard to search for, because the other meaning occurs in many of the same contexts. I tried to find references to someone in the (modern) National People's Congress or NPCSC being a Kuomintang representative/delegate. Someone with more time might find something using that angle. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For example, the Biographical Dictionary of Republican China has a page about "secretary general of the People's Political Council, Shao Li-tzu" who "served as a Kuomintang delegate to the Political Consultative Conference in January 1946", but that's from just before before the split of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang and the Kuomintang-that-went-to-Taiwan; he later served in the PRC government with the Kuomintang Revolutionary Committee. It seems plausible that the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang would be abbreviated to Kuomintang at least sometimes in Chinese, after a first mention of the full name, but it may be too rarely mentioned in English for such use to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia page he is indeed a Kuomintang member (not yet split) at that time, and he was only a RCCK member after the PRC was established, so the quote in Biographical Dictionary of Republican China can't prove that meaning. Meanwhile in Chinese, the RCCK is known as . The term is almost used exclusively for the ruling Kuomintang before 1949 and the Kuomintang based in Taiwan after 1949 (such as, used in Mainland China when referring to the  or the later ; or  — BTW is that term a possible deletable SOP?).廣九直通車 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

RFV Failed, only two quotations. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)