Appendix talk:Chinese radical
What about Wiktionary:Chinese radical, should we merge it into this page? -- Emperorbma 06:16, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea. That page was an early effort of mine, but what you have been doing on that is a big improvement on that. Each line would then be hard numbered, and have links to both the article on the radical itself and the index for that article. Thus:
- Once these have been merged I can get rid of the obsolete pages while checking to make sure that the broken links are fixed. Make sure that any new links are to the page that we will be keeping. Eclecticology 06:40, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Okie dokie. -- Emperorbma 06:42, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Please note that the link at the top of each of the per character index pages should now be to Wiktionary:Chinese radical index instead of Wiktionary:Chinese radical. That was the last point I tried to make in my previous post. Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. Eclecticology 09:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Oops, mea culpa. -- Emperorbma 03:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Known bug
- singular/plural
--Nanshu 07:29, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Ec
- 0 Strokes, 1 Strokes, 2 Strokes, 3 Strokes... --Nanshu
The Unihan database has five radical/stroke fields: kRSJapanese, kRSKanWa, kRSKangXi, kRSKorean and kRSUnicode. I adopted kRSUnicode and ignored the rest although sometimes they differ with each other. If a character has the simplified radical, an apostrophe is added to the value, but I ignored it too. The characters were sorted by codepoint. The order is different from an ordinary dictionary because simplified characters come after traditional counterparts.
To make the radical/stroke index more user-friendly, "alternative radical" should be employed. For example, ?'s radical is ? and the additional strokes are eight, but it should be listed at ? + 3 strokes in parenthesis. --Nanshu 03:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Any opinions about putting (at least) pinyin names next to each radical AND on the respective pages?
Has there been anything to address the fact that Simplified Chinese only uses 189 radicals and Traditional Chinese 214? KelvSYC 21:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Could we have the 'names' of each radical next to each of them? M.e 06:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Chinese characters without definitions[edit]
When I was going to random pages, I noticed there were a number of Chinese characters with no definitions. This is likely caused by poor use of a wikification script. Despite having other possibly useful information, "definitions" need to have meaning. I understand that while having no meaning, the radicals are useful towards an understanding of the Chinese language due to their part in making other characters. However, it is unacceptable to have characters themselves without meanings. I have been going through the characters indirectly linked to by this list and marking as stubs those definitions which do not give meanings. This is just an explanation. Superm401 02:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Radicals wrong?[edit]
I found 次 in the index of 76 (欠) but shouldn't it also be under 8 (亠)? I found it like that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_%28Chinese_character%29 and inside the Concise English-Chinese Dictionary (Oxford University Press). The later one has it listed under both radicals.
- How is 次 under 亠? It's under 仌. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
multiple list[edit]
Hi, I'd like to propose the idea of creating lists similar to the "Wiktionary:Chinese radical index xyz" which would have the name "Wiktionary:Chinese characters consisting of xyz".
For example, 是 would be listed under the "Wiktionary:Chinese characters consisting of 疋" AND "Wiktionary:Chinese characters consisting of 日".
I would be great if you let me know what you think of my idea. I would like to contribute - maybe you know how such lists could be generated automatically (maybe a plain list already exists that just needs Wiki markup).
Thanks, --Abdull 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Maintainability[edit]
This index is rather difficult to maintain. For instance, I want to move 行 from the 4-stroke section to the appropriate 6-stroke section, but I cannot easily do so because the radical numbers would need to change. Is there any way we can make this easier to maintain or perhaps abandon the index altogether and use categories with sort keys instead? Rod (A. Smith) 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Guess I'm gonna do that(change all of the numbers) ---Renatoelchaman 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
New index sorting with some losses on Unicode numbers and on the historic section, Big5 numbers.[edit]
There is a new index sorting on pages related with Chinese characters. The Unicode numbers as well as Big5 on articles must be restored and not to be removed and the table has partially to be restored in which has caused partial problems on ordering by unicode number which is easier and the same as the code number. Please keep the unicode numbers and link the radical index sections in which it is better to link with other Chinese characters. The top indexed once displayed is worstly displayed and aligned and now will have to display with dots while the Translingual word is kept at the top, one reason is to order downward as it was with the old tabling is the other entries uses the dots especially on Romanizations. The character display and the technical code are now at the top, it is uncertain it will be changed or a new title character information to be added on the top. If not passed, try accepting a referendum-style vote in whether to accept both the old and the new tabling together (e.g Unihan 72B5, number: 28906) or the new tabling. Pumpie 00:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Displaying rare Chinese characters[edit]
Could anybody tell me how to make characters such as (+10 strokes,+11 strokes) be displayed properly by my computer? My computer is able to display some Chinese characters, but majority (rarer and difficult ones) are still not "visible". I would be grateful. --Viskonsas 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Fast radical search?[edit]
I miss this site... Someone knows of an online dictionary that uses a similar radical search system for finding kanji faster and easier? --187.18.213.200 02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)