Talk:Pianpang

(Redirected from Talk:Chinese character pianpangs)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested move 14 August 2024


Requested move 14 August 2024

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply


Chinese character pianpangsPianpang – Per WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and concision. No need to disambiguate like with "component" or "radical". Remsense 02:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 08:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the reasons lies in that the titles of Chinese character radicals and Chinese character components, etc. are in plurality, and pianpangs are countable.
However, this name is in Pinyin. And if Pinyin names are not to be in plural form linguistically, then I agree with you. Ctxz2323 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
In general, the criterion is simply whether the topic is more commonly referred to in the plural or singular, whereby Chinese characters in the plural is actually distinctly in the minority. Remsense 04:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
But the article is on different pianpangs. Ctxz2323 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course, just like Letter (alphabet) is about different letters, the letter as a concept, etc. Song, Planet, and so on. Many of your articles just happen to be in the plural because "Chinese characters" are usually spoken of in the plural in English. Remsense 04:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Understand. And thanks. Ctxz2323 (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support per nom. Per WP:CONSISTENT, we should generally avoid adding unnecessary disambiguation just for consistency's sake. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.