Template talk:Chinese script needed

Other language versions

• The Japanese language version of this template is {{Japanese}}
• The Korean language version of this template is {{Korean script}}

Similar templates

• {{needhanzi}}

See also

• {{Contains Chinese text}}
• {{Expand Chinese}}

Merger

04:10, 2 May 2008 Voidvector - merge template added.

{{Mergefrom|Needhanzi}}

• I think it makes sense, it would match how template:Japanese works, with one form on article pages and a second on talk pages. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • On second thought, Japanese has two ancillary templates {{needkanji}} and {{needhiragana}}, and so does Korean {{needhangul}} and {{needhanja}} to go with {{Korean script}}... which would imply keeping these two separate... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Badagnani (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support original nominator. There is no reason keeping 2 templates that does the same thing. If the wording is the reason for two separate templates, then it can easily be merged into one single template with editor-configurable input parameters. --Voidvector (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think they either need to be merged, or their usage needs to be clarified. Comparisons to Japanese and Korean don't quite work, as those languages have multiple writing systems that are often used side by side. With Chinese, it is just Chinese characters (there are both traditional and simplified, of course, but usually both should be given if there is a difference). One of the templates seems to be for the talk page, and the other for the top of the article, but I don't know if that is a necessary distinction.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. {{Needhanzi}} uses the standardized formatting of a main page improvement-related template (which is white background with yellow sidebar on the left) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In view of the fact that consensus for a merge seems far indeed, and in view of the large difference in appearance and content of these templates, I close this discussion as a keep. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)