Talk:Chinese character structures

Distinction

@Ctxz2323, could you please try articulating what the difference is between this article and Chinese character internal structures? I've been trying to make the organization of this part of the site more coherent, and I'm not quite clear on why this material shouldn't be distilled and organized into one article. When you duplicate scope (and material) like this, it often duplicates the work the community has to do. More articles ≠ better coverage.Remsense 诉 05:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between them:

The present article is on "Chinese character structures" as a whole, as well as its two major domains: external structures and internal structures.
Chinese character internal structures is focused on internal structures, and in more details. And can be seen as an expansion (not a duplicate) of the parent article.
And "Chinese character structures" is such an important concept in Chinese characters to have an article of its own.
Agree that it's not good to repeat the contents of one article to create another one (called what folk?). But summary and expansion are allowed between articles in parent-children relation. Am I right?
Agree that quality is more important than quantity.

At lest, that is my intention, though I might not have done it very well, and you can help me there.

Thanks for your reminding. Ctxz2323 (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm not totally clear on what external structures are, since characters are generally thought of as graphically discrete units. Remsense诉 10:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've also created Chinese character forms, which I take to be synonymous with "external character forms". So, these articles are ontologically about the visual characteristics of characters, I understand that much. When you create these articles, they always contain a high number of examples, which adds to their length. Do you think it might be possible to have one article covering both internal and external structures? Just because an article is a distinguishable topic does not mean it is best for the encyclopedia for it to have its own article, e.g. Western Han and Eastern Han are both fully covered in Han dynasty. Remsense诉 10:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think other articles you've created may also serve readers best if they were merged together: I do not see why each character order needs to be a separate page in addition to Chinese character orders. Remsense诉 10:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only about the visual (form) characteristics of characters, but also about the sounds and meanings as well.

Examples are important evidences for the statements. As a matter of fact, quite a number of examples from the textbook sources have been omitted from the wiki articles. In the cases where many examples are used, they should be used to represent different cases, such as those for different primitive component analysis of the present article. If you have found some unnecessary examples in the articles, please let me know where, and I will check it carefully. (Sorry, when I was teaching Modern Chinese characters in a university, my students often asked for examples.) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you prefer merging than dividing, that is understandable. But I remember that it is written somewhere in Wikipedia Help (or Guide) that:

If you feel a section in an article too long (or too much contents to write about), then consider spinning it off into a linked sub-article, and change section into a summary of it.

Sorry to have brought you much trouble in copy editing, and thanks again for your help. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added new section Differences in the article, with contents different from the two children articles. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]