Talk:Semi-cursive script

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I believe the term "semi-cursive" is preferable as the primary term for this script. For a similar discussion on terms for all the scripts, pls see Talk: East Asian calligraphy .Dragonbones 09:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statements removed

FWIW I have removed the following two statements:

To people not familiar with the Chinese characters as they are printed in books and newspapers, this cursive writing may seem impossible to decipher. Not so for the literate Chinese. By using the order of strokes clearly visible on the character, a literate person familiar with the characters can guess what the character really is.

Stroke order cannot necessarily be discerned from the written character and does not play a role in reading. Reading is achieved in part by a "Gestalt" approximation to the regular paradigm, in part by context, and in part by the fact that the cursive approximations are not arbitrary.

As is true with most alphabets, usually the most messy script writing is found in the writings of doctors.

Not even funny.

Steipe (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that since Chinese calligraphy is disappearing due to the introduction of solid writing tools, a robotic arm was programmed to replicate semi-cursive script writing using the writing brush 17 years ago? Source: "Yao, Fenghui; Shao, Guifeng; Yi, Jianqiang (January 2004). "Trajectory generation of the writing–brush for a robot arm to inherit block–style Chinese character calligraphy techniques". Advanced Robotics. 18 (3): 331–356. doi:10.1163/156855304322972477. ISSN 0169-1864."

Expanded by MeipleLeaf (talk). Self-nominated at 03:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

• Article has over 1,500 characters in prose. Article was not expanded 5 times its size at the time of nomination but it has been remedied since. Article is written in a neutral tone and is adequately sourced, but the refimprove tag added in 2013 still is a concern. In the "Writing conventions" and "Computer encoding" sections, there's some unnecessary capitalization in the headers. lullabying (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Additional comments: this is the user's first nomination so a QPQ is not needed at this time. I assume good faith on offline sources. For the hook, I would suggest getting rid of the first part of the sentence as it makes the hook wordy. ALT1 was not suggested; did you intend on including it? lullabying (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Nominator (a student editor) hasn't edited since May 28th and the issues remain unresolved. Unless another editor decides to adopt this, it is now marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless if someone with more expertise in CJKV writing comes along and wants it, I volunteer to adopt this nom. I changed the headers and will look at sourcing next. MSG17 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@MSG17: Have you been able to address all of Lullabying's concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been able to address the headers, and I have started working on references. However, I am rather unsatisifed with that content of this article, as it strays in several places to cover the history of calligraphy in general, rather than just this particular script. Nevertheless, I'm working on it, and should have a suitable version soon. MSG17 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Adding icon to reflect the current state of the nomination so it isn't closed while MSG17 is working on improving the article to DYK standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• MSG17, how long do you anticipate this will take? The nomination will be three months old on August 24; why don't we say that if you haven't been able to address the issues by then, this will be marked for closure. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Really sorry for how long this is taking. MSG17 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset, Lullabying, and Narutolovehinata5: OK, I think it should be fine now. I was rather unsatisfied with the initial state of the article, as it seems more like a school essays that mostly looked at Chinese calligraphy overall with a focus (not the focus) on semi-cursive script (SCS). While this still shows through to an extent, I think it's at a smaller level and provides some background to the spread of SCS in the context of the spread of Chinese culture in general.MSG17 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• MSG17, thank you very much for working on the article. Before we have a new review, however, we will need a new hook: not only was the original hook too long, but its main fact about the robotic arm is no longer in the article. Can you please propose an ALT1? Thank you very much. With all your work as adopter, I have added you to the DYKmake credits. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Wrote some alts below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSG17 (talk • contribs)

• • ALT1:... that the semi-cursive script is the most prominently utilized in daily life? Source: "Today, this is the most commonly used script in everyday life." ([1])
  • ALT2:... that during the Edo period, commoners used semi-cursive script while scholars used regular script? Source: [2]
    • Definitely go with ALT2, as it provides important context. DS (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
      • This nomination is ready for a new review. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Expansion from 653 B "readable prose size" (before nominator started editing) to 7154 B easily meets 5x requirement, most of it (1187 B to 6092 B, more than 5x) in a single edit on May 16, roughly at the time of nomination. QPQ not needed. The article is now thoroughly sourced, and Earwig found no copying. ALT2 is interesting, within rules, and properly sourced. Good to go with ALT2. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2