Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles

I would like to add WP:NOTPINYIN and MOS:NOTPINYIN to cover any romanization of Chinese characters that is not Pinyin. It makes the MOS rule more neutral, as it allows for Hong Kong, Taiwanese or other romanization to directly use WP:NOTPINYIN or MOS:NOTPINYIN instead of the current WP:PINYIN and MOS:PINYIN. The current usage of MOS:PINYIN is contradictive to the romanization of Hong Kong names. It also agrees with the romanization section that "[o]ther examples would be places or things relating to non-Mandarin-speaking regions of China including, but not limited to, articles on Hong Kong... ", etc. Labratscientist (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't like how this implies that Pinyin is not allowed, when in most cases it is explicitly called for. How about a neutral shortcut like WP:ZHROM (for "Chinese romanization")? Toadspike [Talk] 13:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn's imply Pinyin is not allowed at all. Redirects are not restrictive, they should be permissive. And WP:NOTPINYIN and MOS:NOTPINYIN allows the usage for non-pinying romanization. It helps to remove contradiction when mentioning this particular section. Labratscientist (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

About your suggestion, WP:ZHROM is too unintuitive and ambiguous. I have actually considered some alternative, but they are either too long or not descriptive enough. NOTPINYIN is perfect that it is short and covers all other cases, otherwise exhaustively listing every other romanization methods is the only descriptive way I can think of. Labratscientist (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering other uses of NOT-style shortcuts, such as WP:NOT and its subsections like WP:NOTNEWS, "NOTPINYIN" does, in my view, imply that Pinyin is not allowed in some way. "NOT" has a long history on this project of meaning "things the encyclopedia should not do". Those two shortcuts create contradiction, rather than removing it, by pointing to a section that requires the use of Pinyin by default.

Re-reading the section, another shortcut that may work as a compromise would be WP:NONPINYIN. (Derived from Exceptions arise where non-pinyin spellings are used by a clear majority of reliable sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 14:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with NONPINYIN completely. Can you help me move without redirect? It can save two speedy delete. Labratscientist (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure! Glad we could come to an agreement. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Labratscientist (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay I'll just move to speed it up Labratscientist (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Try avoiding objectionable expressions in Chinese-related MoS. Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read the sentence "Simplified characters should be listed first in articles with strong ties to modern mainland China and Singapore; traditional characters should be listed first in articles with strong ties to modern Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau."

However, it does not indicate the special cases, for example, Cantonese Hanzi. Should we use Simp or Trad for "打甂爐" (eating hot pot, this is not used in Mandarin)?

Also, the full guide does not indicate in ancient time.

Thus, I consider that it is necessary to revise. Noordpunt (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This page already says when to prefer traditional or simplified characters under the heading "Introductory sentences". Under "Infoboxes", it also says to use both in Infobox Chinese. I suppose we could add that traditional should be preferred for historical subjects, which is already common practice; "pre-1949" is not the correct cutoff, though. Simplified characters were introduced somewhat gradually from 1956 onwards in the PRC, and from 1969 onwards in Singapore. Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading this more closely, I think the guidance needs revising. For one, I think If there are different simplified and traditional forms, consider including both is bad advice, since in almost all cases only one is needed. I also think being clearer on when traditional is preferred over simplified would be helpful. I'll work on writing something. Toadspike [Talk] 16:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree here, I think the current advice is correct. Including both traditional and simplified isn’t just to reflect what was in use at the time the article’s subject took place. Rather, it’s because readers maybe be familiar with one or the other but not necessarily both. In an ideal world where editors had infinite time, articles would all have both. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SilverStar54 in most cases. When in doubt, include both, as this best serves our readers. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@SilverStar54@Mx. Granger@Toadspike

What is your advice on my new question,

However, it does not indicate the special cases, for example, Cantonese Hanzi. Should we use Simp or Trad for "打甂爐" (eating hot pot, this is not used in Mandarin)? Noordpunt (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Cantonese Hanzi is not actually a special case since Cantonese is spoken in both Traditional and Simplified Chinese areas. Specifically, if the subject is closely associated with Guangdong province, then use Simplified Chinese. 打甂爐 (hot pot) would need both, and, if my reading of the guideline is correct, with Simplified first. _dk (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed

Please read your sources carefully. The editors are saying the "Chinese languages and the Tibeo-Burman languages", not "the Chinese language and the Tibeo-Burman language". If you don't believe me, follow the link on the word "Chinese". The second sentence will clear things up. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The section states that "Other examples would be places or things relating to non-Mandarin-speaking regions of China including, but not limited to, articles on Hong Kong and Xinjiang subjects." Would we be correct in assuming this also applies to non-Mandarin-speaking regions outside China, such as Southeast Asian countries whose Chinese populations have used Hokkien or Teochew as a lingua franca? Vampyricon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

We would also like clarification on whether this applies to {{zh}} parentheticals in addition to running text. (And I personally would like clarification on "Xinjiang subjects" (@Ohconfucius: )—they most certainly speak Mandarin in Xinjiang. Does this refer to Mandarin transliteration of Turkic proper nouns, like Abudushalamu Abudurexiti?) Fish bowl (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore#Non-Mandarin_Chinese_romanisations. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that section lists "Xinjiang" as an exception. As far as I know, though there are many non-Chinese languages spoken there, the predominant Chinese dialect is Mandarin. Our article doesn't contradict this. I'll be removing it unless anyone can come up with an explanation of why Chinese characters in Xinjiang-related contexts shouldn't be romanized using Pinyin. Toadspike [Talk] 09:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

For Southeast Asian countries, I think we should decide on a case-by-case basis. Many Chinese topics in Southeast Asian countries have standard non-pinyin transliterations which should be used (such as kuih and Sengkang). For other topics (such as Xinmin Secondary School) pinyin seems to be more common. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

My question is about people of Chinese origin with Chinese names who use Western name order, in particular when the same name in Asian name order is also used by other subjects of articles. An example is Liu Xin, which is Westernized by some people. My question is not whether what name order should be used. I know that the name order should be the form used by the person in the country in which they reside. It is whether a hatnote is appropriate for those individuals who use Western name order, to make it clear to a reader who is aware of the difference in name order, to indicate that Liu is the family name for Xin Liu. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Normally we only have hatnotes when the last word isn't the family name. I think this is probably not necessary, especially if there's a "native name" in the infobox or an Infobox Chinese or lang template with the romanized Chinese name somewhere, but I'm not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a hatnote is sometimes appropriate for this situation (names of Chinese origin that use Western name order). It can help avoid confusion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

These are currently used in some cases, eg. Gabriel Lam (Singaporean politician). CMD (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Surely there is no justification for the hatnote when the given name is clearly non-Chinese. Kanguole 08:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem stable to pick a path of judging whether any particular name is Chinese enough for a hatnote, nor to assume others have the same assumptions about what makes a name Chinese. CMD (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would propose that a hatnote is appropriate for a fully Chinese name, whether in Western or Chinese order. In most cases, editors can tell whether a name is Chinese. Kanguole 11:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Kanguole. He means "Chinese" in the linguistic sense, not in the ethnic sense. "Gabriel" is obviously not a Chinese-language given name. No one would think his name is actually "Lam Gabriel" in the Western fashion.  White Whirlwind  20:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters. This is silly. That's a much worse romanization. Instead, we should prefer with tone marks, but note that editors may omit them due to laziness.

The normal exceptions would apply. Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)