Template talk:Beginning Mandarin

This template should follow same pattern as the inflection template so instead of:

===Interjection===


 * 1)  used by itself to express surprise; ah, oh

It should be: ===Interjection===

does anyone know how to fix it? Kinamand 08:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  used by itself to express surprise; ah, oh


 * Your observation is accurate. The rs field in  matches the skey field in .  The reason for this is that the two templates evolved along separate tracks.  As you noted,  is one of the inflection templates; it has the same format as all of the rest of the inflection templates.  On the other hand,  is a derivative of the  template.  The  templates evolved separately from the inflection templates, which accounts for the discrepancy.  However, I'm not sure that an easy fix exists.  The reason is that the two fields don't match 100%.  When comparing the two fields, you will note that rs stands for radical/stroke, whereas skey stands for sort key.  In cases where one wishes to sort according to radical/stroke order, the two fields are identical.  In cases where one wishes to sort according to a different scheme (for example, pinyin), we would run into problems.  Hope this explanation helps.  -- A-cai 10:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you think sort according to pinyin would be problem. If you look at my example above you can see that I actually do sort both according to pinyin and radical. Kinamand 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have noticed another discrepancy. The category zh:Beginning Mandarin contains pinyin and zn-ch:Beginning Mandarin contains simplified hanzi but in all other categories like zh-ch:noun the pinyin version is placed together with the simplified version because it is already sorted according to pinyin. Kinamand 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a problem in the sense that in would be counter-intuitive to name a field rs (radical/stroke), then use that field for doing a pinyin sort. With respect to zh vs. zh-cn, the intention was to have pinyin in zh, simplified in zh-cn, and traditional in zh-tw.  This scheme has not always been followed by every contributor, but for the most part is true.  For a more complete description of my original line of thinking, please refer to Wiktionary talk:About Chinese  -- A-cai 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of cause I do not suggest to name a field rs and use that for pinyin sort. Look at my example above again: I suggest two arguments pint and rs where pint is pinyin in tone number for pinyin sort and rs is for radical sort. I suggest that instead of the current solution which is to write |lang=zh-tw|skey=口08|lang=zh-cn|skey=a1 which I think is very clumsy. Kinamand 07:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You say that the intention was to have pinyin in zh but it was not follow by every contributor. Actually it is the template cmn-noun which decides the categori not the contributor. So if pinyin should be in zh it should be fixed in the template. Kinamand 07:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, rs and pint are used in one type of template, where skey is used in another type of template. There would need to be some sort of coordination effort between the two templates.  With respect to pinyin in Category:zh-cn:Nouns, this is caused by contributors incorrectly including t, ts or s in the orthography field.  For example, baleiwu had ts in that field until I changed it just now to p (see baleiwu's history for comparison).  -- A-cai 10:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this?
Ignoring that Beginning doesn't need a capital letter, what is this and why is it a context? I don't get it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate
These aren't context templates. I left a message on Wiktionary talk:About Chinese on what to do and got no replies. The more I look at these, the more they seem POV, but I don't know any Mandarin. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an arbitrary PoV but one set forth by the Chinese language proficiency test (see Appendix:HSK list of Mandarin words). It's not a context label, but it is sense-level information that should be kept somehow. The correct sense is listed in the appendices but maybe it should still be kept on the entry as a usage note. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on reflection, admittedly had someone simply answered my question I wouldn't have nominated these. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)