Category talk:Mandarin terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand these terms becomes entries on Wikipedia based on the Pinyin transliteration method (or the older method Wade-Giles). But these terms are not necessarily having Mandarin origin. I thought about creating this category too (if the similar categories are not voted to deletion), but it could be controversial, and that's why I was hestitant. — Instantnood 07:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei categorised place names such as Guangdong, Lufeng and Shanghai to this category. In that case basically all place names in mainland China (except those in autonomous areas) can be categorised under this category.. Titles of books, such as San Guo Zhi, Chu Ci, Guangyun and Laozi - books written at times predated the emergence of the Mandarin language - was also categorised under this category... The same was also done to ancient people, such as Zhang Qian... and modern people like Yao Ming.. I'm afraid that's obviously overdone. I guess this category should only be used to articles such as Laowai and Wang ba dan. — Instantnood 07:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Proper names such as placenames and names of people should be excluded from the list of Mandarin terms. A term is: A word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge. They are used to describe concepts, ideas, or terminology, while proper names aren't. A person's name isn't a term. This is established in previous precedents: Category:Japanese_terms and Category:Latin_phrases do not list proper names. --Yuje 10:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And there are many Chinese terms not exclusively Mandarin. Guanxi, for instance, is about interpersonal relations in Chinese culture. Pinyin is used for transliteration into English because it is the national and international standard. That doesn't mean the term a Mandarin one. — Instantnood 19:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Words like ramen aren't exclusively Japanese either, but the term in English has come down from the Japanese use. If a term is translated most commonly using the Mandarin pronounciation, then it should be classified as a Mandarin term. Some terms are rather tricky to trace down by dialect, though. Chow mein and kung fu, for example, are pronounced almost identically in both Cantonese and Mandarin, so the etymology is harder to determine. A way to avoid it all completely though, would be to simply merge the two under Category:Chinese_terms. --Yuje 15:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Umm.. I guess at the time being we can remove place names and people names from the category. :-D — Instantnood 20:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

And names of dynasties and kingdoms as well.. :-) — Instantnood 17:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Then in what way is Kung fu an exclusively Cantonese term? Kai-lan? Kumquat? Sampan? Tai-Pan? ;)--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Terms like Guangxi was taken from a general Chinese concept, not specifically from Mandarin-speaking parts of China, although Pinyin was used to do the transliteration. People names, such as Qu Yuan, was transliterated based on Pinyin, but that doesn't make the names Mandarin terms. — Instantnood June 29, 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Terms like "Kong Fu" was taken from a general Chinese concept, not specifically from Cantonese-speaking parts of China, although Cantonese was used to do the transliteration. So what is the diff? Since you decided that a Category:Cantonese terms is justified, then welcome to a new world of major debates over which dialect lays claim to which Chinese term. I call this creating an issue out of nothing. Perhaps we should just remove both cats and call it "Chinese Terms"? Muahahaa.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 07:51 (UTC)

I did not create category:Cantonese terms [1], and I have been cautious on deciding what should be categorised under this category. I won't categorise like titles of books and films, place names and people names, into that category. If Qu Yuan should stay in this category shall I go ahead and add Sun Yat Sen to category:Cantonese terms?

Many terms are clearly having origin from a certain Chinese spoken variants, from which the English (or other European) loan words were orginated from (say Ketchup is said to be from Malay, which in turn is from somewhere in Fujian [2]), while many general concepts (e.g. Guanxi) are just borrowed from Chinese, but not from any specific spoken variant(s), although Pinyin was used to do the transliteration.

I am not opposing to have this category, but I'm afraid what you did was overdone. — Instantnood June 29, 2005 15:30 (UTC)

I said you connsidered it justified based on a CFD. That is quite different from saying you created it, so perhaps you might wish to reflect on your tendencies in assuming too much over my behavior or intentions? :D Meanwhile, I did it to demonstrate how sily it is to have categories of terms by language. Seems like it has succeeded in doing just that? BTW if you attempy to classify Sun Yat Sen to category:Cantonese terms, you can be sure I would be renaming him as Sun Zhong San.--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Good luck~! Mind it's Shan. :-D — Instantnood June 30, 2005 11:10 (UTC)

Glad you recognise this. Some Chinese terms were popularly known to the west based on a certain transliteration or dialect used, and when you started trying to group terms based on Chinese dialects, we are suddenly left wondering if that signifies their closer affiliation with that dialect group or geographic region. Kiasu is a Hokkien term. So I suppose it describes Fujianese? Since you recognise this disparaty, how do we think of the idea of removing BOTH categories and just having a category:Chinese terms category? Or are you still going to wriggle back to your provincial mental trap?--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Dim sim is clearly related to Cantonese, Wang Ba Dan is Mandarin, and I'd say Kiasu is clearly Hokkien (or Amoy dialect of Min Nan to be accurate). IMHO we can keep Cantonese, Mandarin, etc. as sharper categories for terms that clearly related to a certain culture and spoken variant. For terms about a general Chinese concepts we can categorise them into the Chinese terms category. But clear proper terms (e.g. place names, people names) should not be categorised. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 11:10 (UTC)

As I expected, you continue to champion provincial thinking. Where do we start to diffrentiate between a term being "more related to general chinese concepts", and when it "relates more to a specific dialect group"? Dim Sum, may I point out, is Dianxin in Mandarin, and it becomes less associated with Cantonese food when translated that way, so in what way is it "clearly cantonese"? Kiasu is a "hokkien" term by language, but it is geographically and socially Singaporean/Malaysian, so I suppose it dosent qualify as a Chinese term?--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)

^ The threatening guffaw of Huaiwei makes me feel sick... @.@ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 30 June 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Hehe...sory lah. I mean no harm to others, but I suppose all these crap is causing irritation to plenty of innocent folks as well. Sgh...--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Mind you language. :-) — Instantnood June 30, 2005 11:10 (UTC)

My language is very well minded thank you.....I dont see whats wrong with it so far? :D--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, I did it to demonstrate how sily it is to have categories of terms by language." Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Don't think that mass-renames, mass-reverts, and so on aren't disruptive, either. Frankly, this type of behavior, along with the gloating, and rivalry make it very hard for others to assume good faith. By the time two reverts have happened, that should be a sign to click on the talk page, discuss it. By that, I mean actually trying to work out some kind of concensus, instead of endlessly bickering and obstinately insisting on only a single interpretation of an opinion. And that should go for everybody. --Yuje June 30, 2005 12:06 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this was the first time in my history of being a wikipedian in which I have to actually use this method to demonstrate the inpracticality of anything in wikipedia. Do note that the policy you mention above is a semi policy, and is not binding. In fact, there has been past attempts to make it so, and failed. People have pointed out that sometimes, applying decisions across wikipedia can be very powerful in demonstrating its weakness, and that is when their supporters then try to shift goalposts and whine that "it isnt supposed to be used this way". Sounds familiar? It appears to be that I will have to next apply it to more and more language before people realise how dumb this is?--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 12:14 (UTC)

---

I have fixed the articles started with letters A to P. Articles like Jin Ping Mei, Beijing and Li Peng are removed from category:Mandarin terms. Some are moved to category:Chinese terms, such as Fuqi Feipian and Guanxi. Mantou, Goubuli and Laowai are kept. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on the notices that I have added to category:Mandarin terms, and the newly created category:Chinese terms. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Please note User:Huaiwei had removed some articles from category:Cantonese terms, and moved some from category:Cantonese terms to category:Chinese terms. See category talk:Cantonese terms for a list of articles affected. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 10:52 (UTC)

And do you have a comment on this?--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

The push for the deletion of category:Cantonese terms having failed, he now seems to be trying to empty the category completely. --Yuje July 6, 2005 11:19 (UTC)

Hmm.....the fact is this clearly demonstrates to all of you how contentious it is to have categories by dialect groups (and languages in general. All the edits I made refer to terms which are clearly Chinese first and foremost, and Cantonese only by transliteration. Isnt this what the Chinese terms category is for?--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

An assertion I find hard to believe because of the nature of some of the terms removed and statements made by yourself of your goal to remove Cantonese terms from Wikipedia. For example, Kumquat comes from the cantonese 柑橘, while the Mandarin term is 金橘. Jeet Kune Do (way of the intercepting fist), isn't a "Chinese term first and foremost", with "Cantonese only by transliteration", as it was coined by Bruce Lee. Same with Wing Chun, whose origins are fairly well known. For wok, the character 镬 doesn't even appear in my Mandarin dictionaries (遠東拼音漢英辭典 and Oxford Chinese Dictionary), nor at zhongwen.com, and the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as an English word with Cantonese origins. --Yuje July 6, 2005 12:01 (UTC)

You make this assertion, in a classic knee jerk reaction to any action which "undermines" anything you happen to consider close to your heart. I am here to rid this wikipedia of "provincial" thinking displayed by some clearly overly inward-looking members here, the kind who actually insists that Fish balls are unique to Hong Kong. As someone who has no link to any part of greater China, would I be in a better position to draw the line, or someone who is (you dont find me trying desperately to promote Hokkien words at the expense of other Chinese dialects, do you?)? I promote the usage of Mandarin terms in contentious cases, because it is clearly more nuetral than letting any dialect group claim ownership over it. Instantnood has already demonstrated his realisation that classifying articles by dialect is controversial because they dont neccesarily reflect its actual prevalance in the place it comes from. Take the "Wok" example above. Is a wok an applance used only in Cantonese speaking regions? Is the word "Wok" really a "Cantonese" and not a "Mandarin" word (btw, since when do we have writtern Chinese being defined by spoken Chinese? Why does the article state wok as 鑊, when the same word can be read in Mandarin? Seriously, are you asumuubg other wikipedians dont know the Chinese language or what?--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

In the case of wok, the Oxford English Dictionary clearly attributes Cantonese origins to the English word. Were we to take you and Instantnood's proposition to classify terms by use in all countries as opposed to just the specific instance of the term itself, it would quickly become unworkable. For example, tofu is also doufu, daufu, and dopu in other Asian languages, and ramen is lamian and laimein in Chinese. Should we now remove the term from category:Japanese terms and instead put it in category:Asian terms? I only proposed category:Chinese terms for those words with unclear origins. When English usage of a word clearly originates from a specific dialect, it should be classified under that. And for the record, I'm from San Francisco, so I have just as few links to Greater China as you. Also, given Wikipedia's NPOV policy, provincial thinking is just as valid as nationalistic ones. --Yuje July 6, 2005 13:08 (UTC)

And no, DO NOT create category:Asian terms and start mass-moving articles from category to category just because I asked a rhetorical question. Remember not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Yuje July 6, 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Hahaha...thank you for coming to the realisation that classifying terms by language is as good as creating an issue when there was none before. I asked for ALL language-related cats to be deleted, which at that time amounts to just two cats, so my concerns are not related to Cantonese alone. Meanwhile, congratulations on your personal accomplishments in managing to get out of Asia, but mind telling us where you where born, and where did you grow up in for any point in your life? ;) If nationalistic thinking is as valid as provincial thinking, then yes, it will be accorded the same counter-treatment, as it has always been!--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

There are actually categories for category:French phrases, category:French words, category:German phrases, for instance. :-D Take a good look at category:Phrases and category:Etymology too. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

It was already said that phrases are ok, but Jesus! Why dint you nominate French Words earlier??--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

(responding to Huaiwei) Language classification doesn't create an issue, you do. When the category was first created, you tried to get it deleted. When it failed to get deleted, you tried to create a rival category for Mandarin, and to mass-insert it into biography and geography stubs (ie proper names). When it was decided that proper names don't qualify as terms, and they started getting removed from the category, you tried to mass-rename several Cantonese terms to Mandarin ones, despite the notability of the Cantonese one being more well-established. When you failed to gain concensus on those changes, you started mass-removing terms from the Cantonese category. All I see from you are continued attempts at disruptive behavior after you intially failed to push your views across.

You assume too much, and if you actually read the comments made when I first nominated the Cantonese terms category for deletion, the people who support the deletion generally agree with me that is is futile to classify words by language. Many of those who voted for it to be kept actually mistook the nomination to mean the deletion of the articles in these categories, as can be seen in the "wikipedia vs wikitionary" brought up numerous times there. I therefore do not exactly consider that vote as a well-conducted one, partly through my own fault as well of coz as I probably didnt state my reasoning clearly enough, and I am considering nominating it again, if you would like to know.

While that vote was still on-going (and NOT after the voting was completed), I decided to demonstrate the ridiculousness of such categories by creating one for Mandarin terms. You think I chose this category as a "rival" category. Well, I chose it coz I predicted it will have one of the most number of articles already existing in wikipedia anyway. Is this disruptive? No. I added people's and place names, because for some reason, people seem to think it is ok to add names of food and even phrases in these categories, in an obvious effort to populate it as much as possible. I dont remember seeing anyone "deciding" what terms are until way after I added them to this category. I did find it amusing that some of you can make decisions on that, yet steer clear of the fact that names of a plant arent exactly "terms" either. But then again, who are the ones making this decision? How binding was it? What kind of "concensus" was there? You make it sound like some kind of major decision has been made, when it was merely between the same small bunch of people making petty discussions right here, so I suppose that must have been most responsible of you?

And to think that you actually assume that I decided to mass-name Cantonese articles to Mandarin ones as a result of the above. You must be a teenager to make such an assumption, because it is the hallmark of immature, insecure individuals who somehow consistantly feel that quantity is all that matters. Please take some time to recall the articles I bothered to rename, all of which were quite contrary to your claims that their Cantonese transliterations were "more established" in the English medium. You dont notice me renaming Kongfu as Gongfu, Dim Sum as Dianxin, Wonton as Yuntun do you? Instead, I specially targetted Shifu/Sifu, and all its related articles, because I question their "establishment". You make it sound as thou I was mass-changing all Cantonese terms to Mandarin ones without due consideration. That is nothing further from the plain hard truth, and with this alone, I am beginning to find the worthiness and accuracy of your words suspect.

And last but not least, you again assume that I decided to move articles from the Cantonese terms category with respect to previous "failed attempted". How laughable. Shall I quote what Instantnood himself wrote with regards to the way words are classified while I wasent even logged on, only to see his unilateral declaration and thereby making the exact changes with respect to his "ruling"? I suppose I have every right to be surprised at how my fully compliant behavior is now seen as "disruptive"?

It is plain obvious from the above, that you seem to think you know me well. Well, I suppose this should set the record straight, and from what I see, you are clearly in need of introductory psychology lessons, or perhaps just some counselling will do to guide you abit on learning how to build up on your self-esteem and not to take every action by others as neccesarily being made against your interests. You could go with Instantnood. I suppose it is cheaper for both of you that way. :D--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

This is rapidly moving into the realm of personal attacks. Might I remind you that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I make no claims of knowing you, other than by your history of edits and their relevance to the topic at hand. If you wish to continue this (rather long-winded) rant, either of our talk pages will do fine, and would be preferable to turning the category talk page into a soapbox.--Yuje July 8, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

I am certainly glad you realise this, although I have long thought that it is already in the realm of personal attacks. Your editing behavior is begining to mirror that of Instantnood, someone who has decided that he knows me well enough through his "instincts" to object to my edits even in the most bewildering instances, and someone who devotes lots of time daily checking through all my edits. I suppose that is "personal affection"...but personal nontheless. If you continue to make objections with that obvious pre-conceived notions on my intentions/motives/inclinations, then be prepared to be lambasted when its justified.

I am long-winded? Oh yes I have to, and I prefer it that way. How else do I debuck a short paragraph full of viscious lies and cooked-up tales probably meant for nothing but defamation and potentially even blackmail? If you would like all these soap opera to be operating in someone's talk page (and it dosent have to be mine, thank you very much), then you will do good in taking your personal attacks there and not in a page like this. You cant be complaining that a fully-grown plant has taken root in the wrong place when you are the one who planted its seed, can you? ;)--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Language categories are already well established on wikipedia, including ones for Japanese, Latin, French, and German, so that argument fails as well. Putting tofu under category:Japanese terms doesn't mean it's a concept invented by Japanese and that no other culture knows what it is, it only means that the word in English has come down to us from Japanese. Wok (for example) is an English word that came from the Cantonese pronounciation, so it's classified under category:Cantonese terms. It doesn't "claim ownership" over a concept as you (and Instantnood) think. Moving all Cantonese terms to Chinese terms might be more politically correct to certain people, but for people interested in etymology, the former provides far more useful information.--Yuje July 7, 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Lists of words according to language origins already exist. See Category:Etymology. Putting them in categories just streamlines the words in these lists into more convenient category form.--Yuje July 7, 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Thanks so much Yuje. :-D — Instantnood July 7, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Which then makes me wonder. If you have actually read the nomination for deletion I mentioned above, you would have remembered that I specifically pointed out that borrowed English words from other languages and non-English words are quite different things, and as far as some of the categories above show, they are lumping everything into one in a category as vague as a "term". Now I did not even know that a category for Category:English words of foreign origin exists until you pointed etymology to me, and I am certainly delighted to discover that there ARE people who have bothered to specially classify borrowed English words, as opposed to mere terms alone. Which then begs the question...why, may I know, if you are interested in etymology, that you fail to notice this category, and fail to suggest clearing up the mess by using them? If you are only interested in classifing words by linguistic origin, and not by "ownership", then may I know why you dont suggest renaming the category as "Cantonese loanwords" instead of "Cantonese terms", as the latter invokes quite different meanings to different viewers?

Forgive me if I am making an erroneous assumption myself, but have you reached the point of arguing for the sake of it, so much so that you have failed to be able to think of sensible solutions to solve contentious issues, but instead prefers to simply voice objection for all its worth (or just do a revert with a few clicks like what our friend instantnood loves to do)? Notice, for instance, that even the idea of creating the "Chinese terms" category was my idea to solve contentious issues over "ownership"? Me disruptive? You probably need better evidence for this, or else you might suffer from a backlash in such irresponsible behavior.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

This category is (indirectly) linked from the etymology category, more specifically, from List_of_English_words_of_Chinese_origin. The line between terms and loanwords is often a fine line to draw, and often you'll find words are often in a state of transition. To give an example, Dim sum might have been a borrowed term some fifteen years ago, but is arguably a loan word in our current age. My proposed solution remains the same as the one I first made. [3], that terms most commonly transliterated as Mandarin be categorized under Mandarin terms, and that terms most commonlly transliterated in Cantonese be categorized under Cantonese terms, and so on, with Category:Chinese being used for terms of uncertain origin, like [[Gung-ho]. As for me not cleaning up parts of Wikipedia, I am in fact a mere human and there are limits on on my time and interest. I use the talk pages to propose edits and hear possible objections before making major changes, and build concensus or compromise over disputed changes, not to argue endlessly over issues, and I find this more preferable than endlessly reverting users' edits.--Yuje July 8, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Wow. Your idea of "indirectly linked" seems pretty interesting to evaluate, and no, trying to extablish this link via List_of_English_words_of_Chinese_origin is obviously pulling things too far. If you can have an article in Category:English words of foreign origin, then can you please explain why we have the same terms classified in Category:Chinese terms, which is light years away from Category:English words of foreign origin? Now, I dont know how familiar you are with the topic you appear to preach, but one of the most "official" ways of decipering between an English loanword and a foreign word ("term" is an obviously lousy category title) is to check if it appears in authorative English dictionaries. This has been the accepted norm, and wikipedia should do the same. Wikipedia is NOT the place to define loanwords for others, so I am certainly raising my eyebrows when I see "Jau Gwei", "Kung hei fat choi" and "Dim sum" all in one category. With such a mess, may I know what kind of practical purpose such categories will have accept for trumpeting the said category in wikipedia?

I am not expecting to see you clean up wikipedia overnight. I am not even expecting you to clean it up at all. I have been and still is demanding to know why you would prefer to argue over small little details when you seem to know all along that Category:English words of foreign origin exists. I certainly do hope that you do as you preach, because if not, then perhaps we are going to have alot of fun time together from now on.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Category:English words of foreign origin has only three subcategories so far, German, Spanish, and French loanwords, and still needs a bit of cleaning up, as articles under some articles under Category:Etymology need be reclassified. In addition to loanwords, the articles also includes assimilated English words, for which the original term is all but unrecognizable (bamboo from semambu). For Asian terms, the line between loanwords and foreign terms still remains somewhat fuzzy and remains in a state of transition. As the example I gave, 20 years ago, ramen and anime would not have been considered English words but are today. Due to the international nature of English, various new terms are now in different states of use. Bishonen may not in the common lexicon of most English speakers for example, but the term has already become fairly well established among some speech communities (namely, anime fans). Other words, like qigong are native terms that are sometimes used in English because no equivalent words exist. There is no "authoritative English dictionary" on the subject. The most well-researched source of words for the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary, and it makes no claim of completeness. Allow me to quote the OED: "A common myth about the OED is that it contains every word that is or has ever been part of the English language. Sadly, this is not the case. The English language is far too large and diverse to be fully recordable in a dictionary, even one the size of the OED." Perhaps as the size of the categories expand, they can be split up into more specific subcategories as Instantnood suggested, but in the meantime, Category:foo term is a very convenient catch-all. --Yuje July 9, 2005 06:57 (UTC)

(response to Yuje's comment at 18:08, July 8) I guess the issue can also be dealt with in a sociolinguistic point of view. Many general Chinese concepts and ideas have gone into the English language. As a result of Standard Mandarin being the national language, many has been transliterated based on Pinyin or Wades Giles. Nevertheless these are never Mandarin-specific. The category for Mandarin should be reserved for things which are Mandarin-specific, for instance, Mantou, which is a dish originated from Mandarin-speaking regions of China.

It would be nice if, as Wikipedia grows, it is possible to split into separate categories for loan words (e.g. Dim Sum), terms (e.g. Jau Gwei) and phrases (e.g. Kung Hey Fat Choi). — Instantnood July 8, 2005 19:39 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the terms shoudl simply go under the language they come from. Let me illustrate with a point. Tao is a fairly well-known English word with Mandarin origins, and yes, it is a general Chinese concept as well. If you classify it was a Chinese concept though, other East Asian cultures like Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese might argue that Tao is a concept important to their cultures as well, and ask for classification under Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese terms as well. You've now created a contentious issue from a formerly straightforward word origin. --Yuje July 9, 2005 06:34 (UTC)

I understand your position. But then I'd say Tao is a Chinese rather than Mandarin term, while it is a loanword from Mandarin. (Tao existed much ealier than Mandarin..) This can be done later when there are separate categories for words, for phrases and for loanwords by origin. — Instantnood July 9, 2005 10:53 (UTC)

(response to Yuje's comment at 11:19 July 6) I agree a few, but not all, of the articles that Huaiwei had moved are appropriate ones. But moving so many articles I'd say he's pushing for something. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 11:33 (UTC)

I also agree with some of them, but others have good reason to be in that category. For example, tong is an established English word with clearly attributed Cantonese origins, and thus Cantonese wasn't an arbitrarily chosen transliteration. --Yuje July 6, 2005 12:17 (UTC)

[edit] Martial Art Terms

Well, since at the moment, categorization by language is still controversial since no one can agree, and it seems the discussion is going nowhere...how about temporarily moving certain terms to more neutral categories at the moment until naming conventions are decided? If a standard is applied, it should be applied evenly. As mentioned above, Wing chun terms, Jeet Kune Do, Wing Chun, Siu Nim Tao, Chum Kiu, Chi Sao, Biu Tze, Sisok, Sihing, Sidai, Sibak, and Sifu were all removed from Category:Cantonese terms and/or added to Category:Chinese martial arts terms.

Does anyone object to moving wuxia, wushu, Chin Na, Qi, Qinggong, Tai Chi Chuan, Wodao, Xia (philosophy) all from Category:Mandarin terms (for the moment, at least) to Category:Chinese martial arts terms as well? --Yuje 14:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

No objections of coz. ;)--Huaiwei 15:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)