Talk:Comparison of Standard Chinese transcription systems

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

arrangement

Should pinyin, the official standard, stands as the first column, for easier comparison? What most people are familiar with these days is, I guess, pinyin. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current arrangement because it tries to juxtapose related systems. So closer systems are together, and different ones are more distant.

He's right and you're wrong. Of course it needs to start with pinyin, the official romanization system of Wikipedia and the entire world, or IPA, the standard phonetic transcription. There's nothing helpful about starting with incomprehensible Zhuyin in a romanization chart or trying to bury pinyin in the middle of the pack. —

Llywelyn II

21:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely justified ranting! Who is going to define the closeness of different systems anyway? --2.245.118.79 (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

attribution of sources

I believe the comparison chart has been used without proper attribution from the following website on Pinyin and romanization (perhaps via a secondary site which similarly used it without attribution): http://www.pinyin.info/romanization/compare/hanyu.html.

To the best of my understanding, the chart was an original on the site which I have cited. I have written to the author thereof and asked his opinion on the matter. But clearly, the chart must either be removed or properly attributed. Dragonbones 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has given permission to leave it, so long as attribution is made. I have added the attribution and external link. Problem solved. Dragonbones 05:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You can't actually copyright this kind of information anyway, so it was never going to be deleted. On the other hand, it should be modified to display pinyin more prominently and the mistakes in his chart mentioned below should be addressed. —

Llywelyn II

21:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat column headings

As the chart is so long, column headings should be repeated every 20 or 30 lines so that a person who is comparing systems for a syllable that's far down the list doesn't have to scroll all the way back to the top to see which spelling goes with which system. 192.235.1.34 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. —

Llywelyn II

21:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's too long and repetive for the same 'series' (initials, rhymes etc) actually. i suggest spliting into initials, rhymes and tones table. 180.59.237.188 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusiveness/Exclusiveness of this list

Does this table list all/only sounds in standard Mandarin? or all sounds that's phonetically possible? Because it fails both tests.

For example, the sound "diang" (pinyin) does not exist in mandarin, even though it is listed in here. If the list is supposed to list all sounds that are phonetically possible, then it is missing stuff like bü pü mü fü. --Voidvector (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we don't know if "diang" doesn't exist for real or not. We don't have an absolute standard. There are almost "unlimited" Chinese characters. The men working on Unicode will expand it again and again. Even if we can't find it in something like Xinhua Dictionary, we can't affirmatively deny its existance.

zh:中文拼音對照表 includes o, eng and lüan that are missing here. I checked wikt, they exist in mandarin. For o we have 哦. For wikt:eng, I thought it doesn't exist, but there's a rare 鞡. For wikt:lüán there are 2 characters, but I really doubt if they should be written as luán. So there's no standard, that's the problem. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider to add IPA pronunciations

Dear Wikipedians, would you please consider to add IPA phonemic alphabet forms to the syllables. Even though it's not a romanisation, It would be a great learning tool to see how the syllables are pronounced in the IPA standardized system!Panu-Kristian Poiksalo (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did just that Arne Brasseur (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I've never done this before. I hope I'm not violating protocol. There may be something I don't understand, but shouldn't gwun, lwun, rwun, and shwun in Yale transcription be gwen, lwen, rwen, and shwen? They don't conform to other similar syllables. I thought I'd mention it in case they were typos. Thank you for your attention.

IPA

As a standard references for pronunciation, IPA should be put in the first column as Help:IPA/Mandarin does. --TX55^TALK 17:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

too detailed, hard to compare

like, u dont need biao, piao, miao etc all in 1 table, just remove repetitive parts and split into initial, rhyme etc. 180.59.237.188 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]