Talk:Gwoyeu Romatzyh

FAR?

Is anyone actively watching this article? I am about ready to open a featured article review but wanted to raise the issues first if anyone is around. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

FAR still needed (2022)

This article is lacking some details about prior transliteration attempts of Chinese language in comparison to Gwoyeu Romatzyh. Furthermore, the whole article needs more inline citations, including the History section... and the lead (if necessary).

Also, almost the whole article concentrates more on the technical aspects of the transliteration system itself and which publications use it, and less on the past attempts to use the transliteration system and its decline in comparison to pinyin. Furthermore, "Example" as the last prose section.... To put it another way, the whole article needs to be reorganized or something like that. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with these concerns. Remsense诉 21:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree - especially given that the technical matters should be explained in Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. I don't really see why we need two articles since they could easily be merged, but for as long as we do, then this one should be about the historical context and use of the system, as opposed to the minutiae of the system itself. Theknightwho (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you prefer

1. A merger, and likely still a trim of the technical minutiae of the system, or
2. A full summarization of technical details in this article, leaving them fully for the other

Remsense诉 00:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I'd prefer a merger. The separation is not well signposted, and the combined length isn't overly long anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you think a RM is required, or should I be bold and just do so? Remsense诉 00:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I'd just be bold - we can always RM if it's reverted. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna start work on this merger now. Do you have any other observations on this article that I could work on while I'm at it? Remsense诉 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As I see, some edits have been made. Nonetheless, I think more and more work is needed. Will list the article at WP:FARGIVEN soon. George Ho (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the article in its present state? I've put some more work into it. Remsense诉 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also @Theknightwho Remsense诉 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@George Ho did you not get this ping? I asked because I thought it was possible that I had avoided the need for FAR. Remsense诉 08:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I did. I was too busy and had a lot going on in my life, but I'll comment now. Seems that you've done the article a good justice, but I was just skimming through. Re-reading the article, if the History section describes as far as what multiple sources say, then maybe I won't push further. Meanwhile, there's already Romanization of Chinese and Transliteration of Chinese. George Ho (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for further critique, I want this article to be as good as possible—thanks for bringing the need for improvement to my attention! Remsense诉 19:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense and Theknightwho: Doesn't mean I'll mark the article as "satisfactory" in WP:URFA/2020A. As said, I just skimmed through the article, but I'm still impressed with what you've done so far. Furthermore, not all FARs result in FARC discussions, but that doesn't mean an FARC isn't inevitable, especially if someone else says more work needs to be done. By the way, I've never reviewed a Featured Article Candidate before, so I'm unsure whether you'll take my (unofficial) review seriously. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Gwoyeu Romatzyh" in Gwoyeu Romatzyh

@Yungeditz: Please don't simply revert back to "Gwoyeu Luomaatzyh" while ignoring the explanation. Yes, if the term were regular, then it would be spelled "Gwoyeu Luomaatzyh". However, the rules of GR state that terms borrowed from foreign languages should retain their original spellings, which is why the spelling "Gwoyeu Romatzyh" is used, because it derives from the English word "Roman". This is explained at Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Exceptions, and Chao does explain this himself.

Incidentally, exactly the same rule applies in Latinxua Sin Wenz, which is where that spelling comes from, and not because English speakers decided to mangle "Ladingxua Sin Wenz". Theknightwho (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvenience. I reverted it back to "Gwoyeu Luomaatzyh" because I believed that you were mistaken when you reverted it back to Gwoyeu Romatzyh since I did not read your your original edit summary. I will be more careful next time. yUnGeDiTz (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)