Commons talk:Stroke Order Project/Kangxi radicals/1-99

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Validated + Stroke order code[edit]

The key for this table entry does not seem to be defined. How does it work?

Thanks --NeilenMarais (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The key is here. It goes by the Chinese stroke names abbreviated by English letters just like in the table and is demonstrated with 永. --Tauwasser (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thanks!. It seems the links to the key in the radical list pages were wrong. I've fixed them to point to the link you give above. --NeilenMarais (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that probably happened when Jug moved this list from the old Page Commons:Stroke_Order_Project/Kangxi_radicals to the new subpages therefore dividing them. We had some problems with heavy script load per page, so it would take forever to load and strain the servers. Good thing somebody found out :D --Tauwasser (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Code points[edit]

So I just noticed that none of these entries actually use their proper unicode codepoints for radicals, is this intended? For instance,

⺅(U+02E85) and 亻(U+04EBB) look indentical in most fonts, however, the former is the actual radical, while the latter is a unified ideograph, so I'm not sure how to proceed. It seems illogical to me to list them under their unified ideograph codepoint, however, it would make searching for them nearly impossible due to the fact that you cannot type the radicals' codepoints directly with IME etc. So how should we handle these if we handle these at all? --Tauwasser (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply and that I don't have much time right now to work on this. I don't see this as any great problem. The lack of input and search methods is a problem, but one that I'm sure we can solve somehow. Javascript can translate between unicode (UTF-8?) characters and codepoints very simply. We can't just add scripts to pages here on Commons, but we might be able to get a function added to one of the site Javascripts. If someone wants a solution in the meantime, we could set it up on an external website (I'd be more than happy to offer my personal one). --Swift (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I set this page to be watched but apparently they had server issues and I never got to see your remark lol. Anyway, I think it would be suitable if we just finished the license and would include a special field or smth in there to list different codepoints for the "same" character. So if unified ideograph and radical look identical, just list two instead of one codepoint (might probably even be done afterwards via a script) and then you can look for both and the info is "semi" correct :D --Tauwasser (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Actually, as far as the project page is concerned, it doesn't matter much, the point is simply to visualise on that page the correct glyph in a common font. For the file names, it may be a (small) problem, but (1) most dictionary projects seem to use the unified ideograph as index, not the "radical code", and (2) if the "radical code" version seems useful, a simple redirection will do the trick.
I don't know of any solution for search methods. There is the same problem with "quotes", if you search for "I'm" and the typed text reads "I’m" (there is a difference ... ) you'll never find it unless your browser and/or the search engine makes the translation automatically (like it does for capitalized letters). For Chinese radicals there is no solution for the time being, and if a practical solution ever appears, it will be linked to search engines, not to the page construction.
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Radical 85[edit]

AFAIK 氺 (U+6C3A) is neither a radical nor a variant. It is rather radical 85 水 + 1 stroke, as stated at wiktionary.
I tried to make the tables a bit more useful, and made some expansions to {{hanzigallery}} for that reason. I hope that anybody agrees with me.
There is an unwanted side effect from my creation of substitutes for missing order.gifs; it may now seem as if they are existing, and you have to look twice to see that the subsitutes are non-animated. I have no idea how better to distinct between substitutes and not-at-all existings. -- sarang사랑 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I had an idea to show the difference. While all my substitutes have transparent background, all the animations are intransparent (why? IMHO it would have been better to make them transparent). So I gave the column for the order.gif a darker background, and it is clear to see:

  • white background in dark table cell = animation.
  • dark background of the table cell = non-animated substitute,

So everybody can see what is still missing — or look into the Category:AnimationRequest where they are all collected.

By the way: you can see there that more than 100 animation requests (of them more than 80 radicals) are pending! As far as I can see any animation effort faded away since 2007.


Due to another expansion in the Hanzigallery template the number is restricted:
Currently each Hanzigallery table line performs three "ifexist" function calls.

As such function calls are limited to 500 for one page, no page should contain more than 166 Hanzigallery table lines.

The three pages "Kangxi-radicals" comprise 154, 147 and 86 Hanzigallery lines. -- sarang사랑 10:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)