Talk:Simplified Chinese characters

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Nomenclature

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few points I've been thinking about, though maybe it's good to have this on Talk:Chinese characters or Project:China or somewhere.

So, I think it's correct to view 'traditional' and 'simplified' characters per se as sister sets, just like men didn't descend from apes: their character variants were both in use well before the two sets were standardized in the 20th century. If Khitan small script is a sibling of Simplified, so is Traditional, imo.
There's a conflation throughout the article, maybe an insignificant one, but it seems important to me, between 'simplified' and 'Simplified' characters, and likewise with traditional. It feels right to use 'simplified' when talking about the concept in general and looking and various examples, and 'Simplified' when talking about the specific standard promulgated by the PRC, and its political/scholarly history &c &c. This is reinforced of course by the fact that there are different Traditional character sets used in Hong Kong versus Taiwan etc, and simplified variants that aren't on the PRC list.

Remsense (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

ruhinsiDi

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Students hvn😄😃 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4080:CE1A:B581:CA87:789:DB06:80B5 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What issues are there? 🤔 PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

By far, the biggest issue with this article is that many paragraphs, and even entire sections, lack any inline citations. Remsense诉 02:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Like what? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Many of the claims are a pain to find sources for if one can't read Chinese, but here's a representative example—the first paragraph of the article body:

Although most simplified Chinese characters in use today are the result of the work carried out by Chinese government during the 1950s and 1960s, the use of many of these forms predates the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Caoshu, cursive written text, was the inspiration of some simplified characters, and for others, some are attested as early as the Qin dynasty as either vulgar variants or original characters.

Remsense诉 04:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Add topic