Wiktionary talk:About Chinese/references

References in Chinese entries
We generally do not need references in Chinese entries, especially for common characters, like. Wiktionary works mostly with actual quotations. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 10:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, for characters like, I don't think we need a references section. We are not Wikipedia, so we generally do not work with references (secondary sources), but quotations (primary sources). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I understand your concern here. Wiktionary should not become a soapbox for other websites. Yes, it would be better to work on expanding quotations rather than adding references from other sites. The references from and  contain graphical data from primary sources (eg. original bronzeware images, historical text) that are not publishable on Wiktionary. These references would be of value to non-native speakers of Chinese, particularly Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese who are not able to read Chinese but wish to seek more information about Chinese characters. From a native perspective,  and  are common Chinese characters but from a non-native perspective, these characters are not as common as . Perhaps worth taking note of is the fact that common kanji characters are often well-referenced in the Japanese section compared with uncommon hyōgaiji characters . I find these to be useful for further reading. For Chinese entries, graphical sources are useful to support SVG images of historical scripts that are generated whenever  is invoked. References are also useful for Chinese characters as common as  to support its variant glyph forms. There are instances of IP users adding variant forms of non-Chinese origin to the Chinese section. I think that the addition of references would reduce such incidents from occuring. KevinUp (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but I think most Chinese editors prefer to be less heavy on the References section than Japanese. Bringing non-native speakers, if they're unfamiliar with and, to these references wouldn't be that useful either. If they're meant to be further reading, they should be under "Further reading". — justin(r)leung { (t...) 13:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Can we put these references in a further reading section? I haven't really seen this header being used for Chinese entries. Is there a template we can use to create show/hide boxes under the reference section? KevinUp (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly new header (actually more than a year old), and it hasn't really been used by Chinese editors. See Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading". I'm not sure if we need to show/hide things under References or Further reading. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then, should we start using "Further reading" instead of "References" for characters tagged with and ? This would reduce the clutter. KevinUp (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it can be used even for Advanced. I would only see References as useful for rarely used characters (those with a C- prefix in MoE's Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an excellent idea. I think a bot would be suitable to convert existing "References" section to "Further reading". KevinUp (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging fellow Chinese editors . Are you all okay with using "Further reading" instead of "References" for Chinese characters labelled with, , ? KevinUp (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't support this. Actively trying to improve on these deficient areas is what should be done, instead of handing out the link to another site and being content about the current state. There's nothing unincorporatable about the content difference. We could always say to readers "Well, please go and read pp. xxx in Hanyu Da Cidian, pp. yyy in ... etc." but that simply takes away the drive to improve on it ourselves. Wyang (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the addition of and  is mainly for its graphical data. Creating a "Further reading" section is just a minor not-so-important task. The main reason for doing this is to prevent occurences of random IP users from adding unverified characters as variant glyphs to . As Unicode expands, this kind of situation will continue to happen. For instance, someone recently made a request for . Yes, we should focus more on improving current entries by expanding quotations and translating it into English. That should be out main priority here. KevinUp (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It won't stop random IP users adding incorrect information, but adding the links ourselves is an inefficient use of our own time. Other databases are actively expanding their scope and improving on their deficiencies, e.g. Multi-function Chinese Character Database with their new dialectal readings and compound words, with no link to Wiktionary on their website. Wyang (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is very true indeed. In view of this, we should stop using reference templates that are linked to external sites. I would suggest using the < !-- notation to indicate the source so that our own editors can still check/verify the information when it is needed. From an academic point of view, websites are not a reliable source of information. Likewise, a lack of citations is considered improper. Since we already have  listed under the translingual section I think that should be sufficient. We can still list printed dictionaries such as dialectal Chinese dictionaries which are only accessible offline. In light of our recent beer parlour discussion on Vietnamese readings, I think we should also remove the Nôm Foundation links in favor of printed reference materials. It would be better to list only offline reading materials such as what is being done in Japanese entries. By eliminating online references this would make Wiktionary on par with scholarly material and improve the reputability of thus site. KevinUp (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree re limiting external links. References in printed dictionaries are not listed at the end of every individual entry, but rather listed together in one section of the book. This is the reason was created- we also have many routinely consulted sources for our dialectal readings, which should be listed in a separate section on About Chinese/references. Wyang (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea to use instead of reference templates that are linked to external sites. The latter should be removed eventually., you might want to take note of this too. We are eliminating the use of references that are linked to external sites for single-character CJKV entries. The only exception is the Unicode site.  I think we should use the CLDR Utility (eg. 亮) instead of the Unihan database (eg. 亮) which occasionally contains some errors. KevinUp (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Another Hakka reference
Hi. Can this dictionary be added as a standard Hakka reference with a template, please? For example, entry can be referenced with this link https://hakka.fhl.net/dict/search_hakka.php?DETAIL=1&LIMIT=id=11698&dbname=hakka&graph=2 if the template existed. Thanks in advance. (BTW, this dictionary works for me if I enter a single character, e.g. 輪 in the search, then it gives a list, not sure how to search for full words).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For future reference, I have no background in non-Mandarin varieties. Flattered to be called though. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. You have been called because I used and you are on the Chinese list zh. My question wasn't about a Chinese variety but a request to have a new reference template. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a dictionary, but a word list with pronunciations. While it's an okay source for pronunciations, I don't know if we would really need to list it in references. Most of its content is based on the Hakka Bible, so it'd be better to find the word in the Hakka Bible and quote a verse. BTW, it's also the source for our Hakka pronunciation data modules (MOD:zh/data/hak-pron). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as it is a good verification source, it would be good to have it as a standard template. The template can state its purpose. E.g. some Ukrainian, etc. reference templates are only used to show the accuracy of word inflections. I just need some technical help to add. I will attempt later if no-one does. BTW, I agree that quoting Hakka bible would be even better but that's another level. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't oppose making the template, but I think it's kind of redundant to have both the quote from the Hakka Bible (which has both Chinese character and romanized versions) and listing this source as a reference. As for your question on searching, I put 輪仔 as the search term and it works. I suspect you might've put in 輪子 instead? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Pls ignore the searching problem. Something happened a while ago and not with this term, unable to reproduce that problem now. I have created, which needs attention (e.g. the shouts about the missing date or year). It's not linked anywhere. I have removed the link in 輪仔 to this dictionary, since you have provided a citation. Yes, it may be redundant if a quote is provided. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the template. I've suppressed the missing date/year warning. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)