 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Han-Nom page were merged into Chữ Nôm on 19 June 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Redirect?
editI followed a link in a discussion to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Nom" but it redirects to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%E1%BB%AF_N%C3%B4m", the former is clearly an Anglicised word (not one I've heard before today). English doesn't have any "u" character other than "u" and it's capitalisation. Please use English for the English Wikipedia. So, er, what's the English language name of this page? The Hanji page is named in English rather than in Pinyin, so why not this page? 212.100.0.227 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- This was already considered in 2007 (§ Requested move) and no consensus was reached. "Chu Nom" isn't any more English than "chữ Nôm". It isn't anglicised, it's the same foreign word only written without diacritical marks as English speakers might do when they can't, or don't bother to, reproduce the foreign orthography faithfully. The only rule Wikipedia has for cases like this (WP:DIACRITICS) is to follow the usage established in English-language sources. WP:UE also says to follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject if there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage. – MwGamera (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Changed to 1871 version
editI changed the Truyện Kiều example to the 1871 version as it uses 𡎝 instead of 揆 which is uncommon. 𡨸 is also the more common character than 𡦂. Same reason for 𱺵. All of the manuscripts use 𡎝 rather than 揆 with the exception of the 1866 version.
I also corrected the gloss for 窖 as it was a variant character of the near-homophone Sino-Vietnamese 竅 khiếu 'hole. Which was used to write khéo (which sounds similar to khiếu) rather than 窖 giáo which is wrong and does not sound similar at all.