Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles

Trad. and simp. Hanzi

I noticed that there is no guide on the use of Simplified (S) and Traditional (T) Chinese characters. This is my advice,

For articles about mainland China, use S.; otherwise use T. If the time is before the establishment of PRC (pre-1949 period), all T. All traditional Chinese literature, e.g. the Analects, use T. In the template Infobox Chinese, use both.

Sorry, I did not read the sentence "Simplified characters should be listed first in articles with strong ties to modern mainland China and Singapore; traditional characters should be listed first in articles with strong ties to modern Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau."

However, it does not indicate the special cases, for example, Cantonese Hanzi. Should we use Simp or Trad for "打甂爐" (eating hot pot, this is not used in Mandarin)?

Also, the full guide does not indicate in ancient time.

Thus, I consider that it is necessary to revise. Noordpunt (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This page already says when to prefer traditional or simplified characters under the heading "Introductory sentences". Under "Infoboxes", it also says to use both in Infobox Chinese. I suppose we could add that traditional should be preferred for historical subjects, which is already common practice; "pre-1949" is not the correct cutoff, though. Simplified characters were introduced somewhat gradually from 1956 onwards in the PRC, and from 1969 onwards in Singapore. Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading this more closely, I think the guidance needs revising. For one, I think If there are different simplified and traditional forms, consider including both is bad advice, since in almost all cases only one is needed. I also think being clearer on when traditional is preferred over simplified would be helpful. I'll work on writing something. Toadspike [Talk] 16:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree here, I think the current advice is correct. Including both traditional and simplified isn’t just to reflect what was in use at the time the article’s subject took place. Rather, it’s because readers maybe be familiar with one or the other but not necessarily both. In an ideal world where editors had infinite time, articles would all have both. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SilverStar54 in most cases. When in doubt, include both, as this best serves our readers. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@SilverStar54@Mx. Granger@Toadspike

What is your advice on my new question,

However, it does not indicate the special cases, for example, Cantonese Hanzi. Should we use Simp or Trad for "打甂爐" (eating hot pot, this is not used in Mandarin)? Noordpunt (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Cantonese Hanzi is not actually a special case since Cantonese is spoken in both Traditional and Simplified Chinese areas. Specifically, if the subject is closely associated with Guangdong province, then use Simplified Chinese. 打甂爐 (hot pot) would need both, and, if my reading of the guideline is correct, with Simplified first. _dk (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Revising the sentence

Removed

Please read your sources carefully. The editors are saying the "Chinese languages and the Tibeo-Burman languages", not "the Chinese language and the Tibeo-Burman language". If you don't believe me, follow the link on the word "Chinese". The second sentence will clear things up. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on WP:NONPINYIN

The section states that "Other examples would be places or things relating to non-Mandarin-speaking regions of China including, but not limited to, articles on Hong Kong and Xinjiang subjects." Would we be correct in assuming this also applies to non-Mandarin-speaking regions outside China, such as Southeast Asian countries whose Chinese populations have used Hokkien or Teochew as a lingua franca? Vampyricon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

We would also like clarification on whether this applies to {{zh}} parentheticals in addition to running text. (And I personally would like clarification on "Xinjiang subjects" (@Ohconfucius: )—they most certainly speak Mandarin in Xinjiang. Does this refer to Mandarin transliteration of Turkic proper nouns, like Abudushalamu Abudurexiti?) Fish bowl (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore#Non-Mandarin_Chinese_romanisations. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that section lists "Xinjiang" as an exception. As far as I know, though there are many non-Chinese languages spoken there, the predominant Chinese dialect is Mandarin. Our article doesn't contradict this. I'll be removing it unless anyone can come up with an explanation of why Chinese characters in Xinjiang-related contexts shouldn't be romanized using Pinyin. Toadspike [Talk] 09:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

For Southeast Asian countries, I think we should decide on a case-by-case basis. Many Chinese topics in Southeast Asian countries have standard non-pinyin transliterations which should be used (such as kuih and Sengkang). For other topics (such as Xinmin Secondary School) pinyin seems to be more common. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Western ordered Chinese-American names

My question is about people of Chinese origin with Chinese names who use Western name order, in particular when the same name in Asian name order is also used by other subjects of articles. An example is Liu Xin, which is Westernized by some people. My question is not whether what name order should be used. I know that the name order should be the form used by the person in the country in which they reside. It is whether a hatnote is appropriate for those individuals who use Western name order, to make it clear to a reader who is aware of the difference in name order, to indicate that Liu is the family name for Xin Liu. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Normally we only have hatnotes when the last word isn't the family name. I think this is probably not necessary, especially if there's a "native name" in the infobox or an Infobox Chinese or lang template with the romanized Chinese name somewhere, but I'm not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a hatnote is sometimes appropriate for this situation (names of Chinese origin that use Western name order). It can help avoid confusion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

These are currently used in some cases, eg. Gabriel Lam (Singaporean politician). CMD (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Surely there is no justification for the hatnote when the given name is clearly non-Chinese. Kanguole 08:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem stable to pick a path of judging whether any particular name is Chinese enough for a hatnote, nor to assume others have the same assumptions about what makes a name Chinese. CMD (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would propose that a hatnote is appropriate for a fully Chinese name, whether in Western or Chinese order. In most cases, editors can tell whether a name is Chinese. Kanguole 11:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Kanguole. He means "Chinese" in the linguistic sense, not in the ethnic sense. "Gabriel" is obviously not a Chinese-language given name. No one would think his name is actually "Lam Gabriel" in the Western fashion.  White Whirlwind  20:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Include the tones in Pinyin

English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters. This is silly. That's a much worse romanization. Instead, we should prefer with tone marks, but note that editors may omit them due to laziness.

The normal exceptions would apply. Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

When pinyin is given as a pronunciation guide (for example, in an infobox or in parentheses next to a Chinese phrase), I fully agree that tone marks should be included. However, when a name is used in running English text, it's much more common for sources to use pinyin without tone marks, and Wikipedia should usually follow that practice. It's an unfortunate practice, because of course toneless pinyin doesn't give enough information to know how to pronounce the words, but it is the standard practice in English-language writing. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that second point is true — which I haven't verified but can well believe, especially given that I, another ignorant anglophone, often do the same thing — it's well-taken, but I don't see that it's necessarily relevant. If we want our guidance to be "just use whatever RSs predominantly use" that would be fine, I guess; but that isn't our policy. We can pick our own convention for Wikipedia's style. (Modulo, I suppose, a rare but possible case where every RS gives the pinyin without tone marks so we don't actually know what the tones are supposed to be.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for some updates on the romanisation section

The romanisations section is quite lacklustre when it comes to talking about non-mandarin. I am proposing that there should be more guidelines stated regarding romanising Chinese text into cantonese romanisation systems in relation to Hong Kong as it is only briefly mentioned as "Other examples would be places or things relating to non-Mandarin-speaking regions of China including, but not limited to, Hong Kong." but does not actually specify how cantonese romanisation should be treated. Warpswitch (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I strongly agree, but unfortunately, I haven't been able to find many good resources on non-Mandarin romanization standards. Do you know of any? SilverStar54 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

For cantonese, Jyutping and Yale romanisation of Cantonese are quite standardised and the hong kong gov has used jyutping before. For Hokkien, the taiwanese ministry of education uses a heavily standardised Tâi-lô on their taiwanese hokkien dictionary at https://sutian.moe.edu.tw/zh-hant/ although many hokkien page titles here on wikipedia make use of toneless Pe̍h-ōe-jī which is almos the same system just with some spelling changes such as "ts" in tai-lo vs "ch" in peh-oe-ji. The taiwanese ministry of education also has a hakka dictionary site that makes use of the Hakka Pinyin System at https://hakkadict.moe.edu.tw/introduction/. Obviously there are many other sinitic languages with their own romanisation systems to deal with but these 3 will likely be the most common since they are official languages in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Warpswitch (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)